*

Offline YukiTheGlobeEarther

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • I'm a firm believer in the Scientific Method
    • View Profile
A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: November 16, 2020, 10:05:17 PM »
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.
Hello! I am a round-earther whom is in grade 11. I am a firm believer in the scientific method and I am open to differentiating opinions. If you are able to change my mind on the Earth shape discussion then so be it! All I need is the tiniest bit of recreatable evidence and we are good to go!

Offline Cypher9

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2020, 08:52:16 PM »
 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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2020, 10:32:13 PM »
...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?



Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline Cypher9

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2020, 11:03:45 PM »
Standing by the water's edge in front of the ocean not from a height looking down is what I should have said.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2020, 12:11:52 AM »
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline Cypher9

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2020, 12:26:29 AM »
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.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2020, 02:33:13 AM »
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2020, 10:55:06 AM »
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!
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2020, 03:17:24 PM »
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.
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #9 on: November 22, 2020, 04:26:56 PM »
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:
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #10 on: November 22, 2020, 06:19:07 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 06:28:06 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7655
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #11 on: November 22, 2020, 07:12:32 PM »
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.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #12 on: November 22, 2020, 08:27:02 PM »
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:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7655
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #13 on: November 22, 2020, 08:30:57 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2020, 08:44:46 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12113
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #14 on: November 22, 2020, 08:43:26 PM »
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.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1592
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #15 on: November 22, 2020, 09:24:35 PM »
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.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Online RhesusVX

  • *
  • Posts: 178
  • 1/137.03599913
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2020, 09:40:03 AM »
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.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

Offline Cypher9

  • *
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« Reply #17 on: November 23, 2020, 09:05:45 PM »
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.