[Peejay]

New guy here!…. I am certain of nothing and am inquisitive to know how or if celestial bodies play a role in our existence.  Also if the idea of an ever expanding universe coinciding with FET is a possibility. I currently lean towards the Earth being either both spherical and flat or neither. So many questions arise contemplating the shape of the Earth. How do spirals fit in to the whole picture. Whether observing nature and the Golden ratio’s role in creation of  plant life harnessing spiraling pathways to seeing them at a microcosmic level viewing microscopically or at a macrocosmic level telescopically whirling at a possible galactic level. Being the most often depictions left carved by ancient cultures spirals seem to play an important role in existence for all life. Whether the Earth is round, flat, both or neither I keep an open mind, find peace and freedom in having certainty of nothing, and power in that truly making anything possible… any idea's or information related to the info I shared would be welcome. Thank you!

[Roundy]

I believe that if you twist the evidence around enough you can probably view the Earth as being spherical. But when it comes to everyday experience it is clearly and definitely flat.

[AATW]

I believe that if you twist the evidence around enough you can probably view the Earth as being spherical. But when it comes to everyday experience it is clearly and definitely flat.

What every day experience would lead you to the conclusion that the earth must be flat rather than spherical?

[Tron]

Spirals do seem important in creation.  Galaxies spiral and so do weather phenomena like hurricanes, tornados, etc.   Often matter in the sky is compressed into more solid structures like rain and snow.  Perhaps galaxies and world's are created or maintained in a similar way.

I don't know if the universe is expanding.  I have a hunch it's like a big bubble.  But that's all I know. 

[Roundy]

I believe that if you twist the evidence around enough you can probably view the Earth as being spherical. But when it comes to everyday experience it is clearly and definitely flat.

What every day experience would lead you to the conclusion that the earth must be flat rather than spherical?

Observation of the world around me.

[AATW]

Observation of the world around me.

Can you give some examples of observations and explain why they indicate the world is flat rather than a sphere.

[secretagent10]

Observation of the world around me.

My observations would lead me to believe that it is round.

[Roundy]

Observation of the world around me.

Can you give some examples of observations and explain why they indicate the world is flat rather than a sphere.

On any wide expanse of water (the best test, since random land formations won't skew the results), I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.

[AATW]

Observation of the world around me.

Can you give some examples of observations and explain why they indicate the world is flat rather than a sphere.

On any wide expanse of water (the best test, since random land formations won't skew the results), I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.

OK. Well firstly, thanks for a straight answer to a straight question.
Secondly, I'm sure you've seen the "basketballs are flat" meme. There's a difference between what we can perceive and what we can measure.
On a sphere of sufficient size, being unable to perceive any curvature is the observation you would expect.
But there are observations we can make which imply that the earth isn't flat.

1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it. You can find zoomed in pictures of the tops of ships and other landmarks where some of them is clearly missing. What is hiding it?
2) The distance to the horizon increases with altitude, as does the angle dip to the horizon. The latter of these can be measured, if not perceived. Also with altitude, as you can see further, you can see more of distant landmarks. All this is what one would expect to observe if we are living on a sphere. If we were on a flat plane we should be able to see all of distant objects, subject to visibility:



Finally, the very existence of a sharp, clearly defined horizon implies the earth isn't flat. A sharp line like that generally denotes the edge of something. What would it be the edge of on a flat earth? Why can't you see more sea past the horizon? On a flat earth the sea would surely fade out as visibility prevents you from seeing further, as it does on a foggy day where visibility is less than the distance to the horizon.

FE does have some thoughts on how to explain the above, but I'd suggest that these observations are not what would be expected on a flat earth and other mechanisms have to be hypothesised to explain them.

[Tom Bishop]

1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

Instead of continuously repeating this misunderstanding of optics, there is an experiment you can perform to demonstrate the matter. We provide a home printout experiment for school children at the end of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution

[WTF_Seriously]

The WIKI explanation is utter nonsense.

Here's a video clearly illustrating that it is not any perspective related issue which hides the lower part of a vessel:



If what is in the WIKI were accurate, as a magnifying device was used to bring the vessel into view, the interface between the ship's deck and it's cargo would become visible as the entire object shrinks and grows.  This is due to the fact that the height of the ship itself is nearly as large as the height of the stack of cargo above the deck. For this video, this can be seen as the ship's tower passes.  The cargo is much lower than the tower which puts the height of the cargo reasonably close to the height of the ship.  As the video clearly shows, the entire ship has disappeared below the horizon leaving only the cargo visible.  If Rowbotham's explanation were correct this is not what we would witness.

[Tom Bishop]

There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

[WTF_Seriously]

There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

Now take this experiment and make the height of the hull of the ship equal to the height of the sails and see what happens.

[markjo]

There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc

The curvature of the earth is a phenomenon that should also be considered, especially if you put any stock in Occam's Razor.

[SteelyBob]

There are multiple phenomena that can cause a sinking ship effect - swells, refraction, etc - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect

We were talking about the specific claim that the hull of a ship can be hidden with distance due to lack of optical resolution and then restored with optical zoom. There is a simple experiment that you can perform to demonstrate this:

The experiment is ludicrous. You are merely presenting a very thin hull, and showing that, of course, your eyes will struggle to resolve the thin line first as distance increases. That is not surprising. But, as other posters have pointed out, that doesn't match up with what we actually observe, where ships with hulls comparable in height in to their superstructures still have the same thing happen, with the obscured part remaining constant regardless of magnification.

The page on the wiki displays a complete misunderstanding of optics as well. It says:

However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer

This suggests that the angular relationship of light rays arriving at an observer changes with varying eyesight or magnification. This is nonsensical. A ray of light does not deviate according to the eye of the beholder, as it were.

[AATW]

1) Ships, buildings and other distant landmarks disappear behind the horizon and do so increasingly with distance. They cannot be "restored" with optical resolution as Rowbotham claimed - I mean, they can if they're this side of the horizon, but not once they're beyond it.

Instead of continuously repeating this misunderstanding of optics, there is an experiment you can perform to demonstrate the matter. We provide a home printout experiment for school children at the end of this link: https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution

I'm not sure I need a lesson in optics from someone who has repeatedly in the past claimed on here that sunset is caused by "perspective" and failed to understand that crepuscular rays are caused by perspective.

But in any case, your "experiment" simply demonstrates the part I already wrote in bold above. The very thin hull in your picture will become hard to resolve at a certain distance. And yes, in that case optical magnification could "restore" it. But the reason it can be "restored" is that it isn't hidden in the first place. It isn't behind anything, it just becomes difficult to discern at a certain distance. While we are here, there's nothing magic about the hull being at the bottom. If it was at the top then at a certain distance it would still be hard to discern because the the issue here, as the title of that Wiki page suggests, is the limit of optical resolution. It's the same reason that the ISS is just a bright dot in the sky and you need some optics to discern the shape of it.
I drew a triangle to represent a sail and a thin line to represent a hull and took two photos of it from across the room. The first photo I took with no magnification, the second I zoomed in:



Oh look, the hull is "restored" in the bottom photo...even though I've put it at the top. Because it isn't "restored" at all, it's just the resolution of my camera (or my eye) isn't good enough to see that thin line from across the room. Zoom in with the camera and there it is.

TL;DR, with distance smaller things are harder to see than bigger things. If you zoom in then you'll see them, if the zoom is good enough and if visibility allows.

The problem you have is that ships DO sink below the horizon, as do distant landmarks and buildings, if they're beyond the horizon. And no amount of optical zoom will restore them. What are they behind? Where's the rest of that ship on the right?



You are simultaneously claiming that observations better match a flat earth than a globe and invoking mechanisms like swells or refraction (which typically makes more of an object visible than you would expect if we didn't have an atmosphere) to explain why observations don't match a flat earth.

[Tumeni]

On any wide expanse of water, I can look down and see that the surface is flat. This is something I've observed many times. The most immediate and direct evidence points to a flat Earth. It shows no evidence of sphericity.

All I can suggest is, once again -

Find a vantage point to look out on the sea and note its height above sea level
Observe something out on the water which is of lower height, above its waterline or coastal line, than your observation position.
Let's say you're at 100m elevation, looking at a ship of 52m.
You must be looking downward at the topmost point of the ship.
You must be looking downward at any and every point on the water's surface.

If the water is truly flat, there can be no instance where you look downward at the topmost point of the ship and fail to see water behind and beyond it.

A descending line from 100 to 0 must pass through 52
A descending line from 100 to 52 must, if continued beyond the 52 point, reach 0. It cannot miss it.

If there is ANY instance where you see clear sky behind and beyond the ship which is lower than you, the sea CANNOT be flat.

100m observation point, 52m ship with twin yellow cranes at approx. 17km. Nothing but clear sky behind and beyond the topmost point. The sea cannot be flat.



Nothing to do with Tom's "sinking ship", no need to show ships "going over the horizon".

Proof found in near-field objects, well within clear viewing distance. Can show the same with observations of islands, lighthouses, other fixtures. Loads of examples.

[J-Man]

It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

FLAT EARTH

[WTF_Seriously]

It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

FLAT EARTH

Interesting.  A "soo brief" 30 second swell that is covering the distant ship yet there are no swells around the ship in the foreground.

[Tumeni]

It was soo brief, appears to be a swell covering the hull with perspective issues also.

It's a still photo. Of course it's "brief"

Here's a crop centred on the ship under discussion. What swell?




I was at 100m elevation (height a below), with the ship of height a1 at distance b1 from me. If the sea is genuinely flat, then the surface of that, along with the vertical below my feet, yields a right angle below me; join the observation point to the top of the ship, forming a hypotenuse for a right-angle triangle and we must, by definition, have a line which descends toward the sea; since the ship is 52m, and I'm 48m above it.

That downward line must meet the sea, IF the sea is flat. Parallel lines never meet, but non-parallel lines must. The downward sightline is not parallel to the sea, so must meet it. With the observation height, ship height, and distance of ship all known, we can calculate, with school-level geometry, where the sightline should meet the water. But the sightline does not meet it. We see clear sky behind and beyond the top of the ship.

What are the "perspective issues"?