[Rayzor]

Look out your window.

On a clear day I can see the horizon is a sharp line,  which proves curvature,  what do you see?

[juner]

Look out your window.

On a clear day I can see the horizon is a sharp line,  which proves curvature

No, it doesn't.

[huh?]

I suppose that there are some instances when you are looking at a hill or something other than the actual horizon

...but if you are actually looking at the horizon and it is sharp

(and you have not just discovered the fabled flat Earth edge)

than yes it proves the Earth is round

(although I suppose it is also possible that when some people use the term "horizon" that they mean something other than the line caused by the curve of the Earth.)

[juner]

I suppose that there are some instances when you are looking at a hill or something other than the actual horizon

...but if you are actually looking at the horizon and it is sharp

(and you have not just discovered the fabled flat Earth edge)

than yes it proves the Earth is round

(although I suppose it is also possible that when some people use the term "horizon" that they mean something other than the line caused by the curve of the Earth.)

I'm not sure what you're attempting to get at here. Seeing any perceived termination line is not conclusive proof of the shape of the earth regardless of the shape you believe it to be.

[Rayzor]

I suppose that there are some instances when you are looking at a hill or something other than the actual horizon

...but if you are actually looking at the horizon and it is sharp

(and you have not just discovered the fabled flat Earth edge)

than yes it proves the Earth is round

(although I suppose it is also possible that when some people use the term "horizon" that they mean something other than the line caused by the curve of the Earth.)

I'm not sure what you're attempting to get at here. Seeing any perceived termination line is not conclusive proof of the shape of the earth regardless of the shape you believe it to be.

If the earth was flat, the horizon would be the limit of visibility,  determined by Rayleigh scattering, ( same effect which makes the sky blue) and which limits visibility in clear air to about 300km,  so the horizon would be a fuzzy blue line.   Similar the blue haze you see when looking at distant mountains.   Not a sharp line a few kilometers away.

On a clear day the horizon is a sharp line, ergo,  the earth is not flat.   

[huh?]

I'm not sure what you're attempting to get at here. Seeing any perceived termination line is not conclusive proof of the shape of the earth regardless of the shape you believe it to be.

It is just plain physics. Either the horizon is a fixed distance away because of the curve or there is no horizon except at the edge of the flat earth

If the Earth where actually flat we would see it fade out of view (unless we are actually looking at a wave) as someone else suggested.

I suppose the trick is to determine if we are observing the actual horizon or a wave. But since we typically see an horizon on a very clear day and not a gradual fading then I think it is good evidence of the roundness of Earth (plus we have many other observations which support that fact)

[Pongo]

On a clear day the horizon is a sharp line, ergo,  the earth is not flat.

This is only true if the earth is a perfectly flat.  As you can tell, there are hills, trees, buildings, waves, and any number of things that block you from seeing into infinite perfect flatness.  Or are you proposing that hills, trees, buildings, waves, and anything with any height doesn't exist?

[huh?]

Yes that is why I mentioned waves it is certainly possible that a wave could obstruct a view

However if one is standing on a high surface say 1000' above sea level and looking out to the ocean the wave would need to be very high. If one where in an Airplane at 10,000 ft it would need to be the Mother of all waves.   

[Rayzor]

On a clear day the horizon is a sharp line, ergo,  the earth is not flat.

This is only true if the earth is a perfectly flat.  As you can tell, there are hills, trees, buildings, waves, and any number of things that block you from seeing into infinite perfect flatness.  Or are you proposing that hills, trees, buildings, waves, and anything with any height doesn't exist?

I agree,   most of the time we can't see the horizon because of obstructions,  but the odd times when we do have a clear unobstructed view of the horizon,  if it is a clear day, the horizon is always a sharp line.   

I don't want to spoon feed you the opposing argument,  but the usual flat earth refutation involves perspective and things disappearing at the vanishing point.   

Pictures of the horizon at sea can be argued that ocean swells interrupt the view,  so let's leave ocean views out of it for now,  here is a salt flat



Another salt flat, Bonneville this time.

[huh?]

Frankly I think that the ocean is a better example because it is mutually agreed that water tends to be level.

Where as the salt flats could in fact be a very large dome and would have to be surveyed and agreed upon.

[Charming Anarchist]

Frankly I think that the ocean is a better example because it is mutually agreed that water tends to be level.

Now you are just making stuff up on the fly!  You guys need flow-charts or cookbooks or something. 

The only way "it is mutually agreed that water tends to be level" is if the earth is flat --- as can be seen with the eyes God gave us.   You liars can not have it both ways.  Get your stories straight. 

[huh?]

I do not understand -we both seem to agree that water is level


However we perceive level two different ways.

-you think of level as being a flat plane

-I think of level as being a perpendicular to the center of the Earth

Even though we have a different understanding of what level is we can agree that it is level (not including waves)

Therefore it is a mutual understanding that water is level.

For example we would all agree that a level is level

[Pongo]

Yes that is why I mentioned waves it is certainly possible that a wave could obstruct a view

However if one is standing on a high surface say 1000' above sea level and looking out to the ocean the wave would need to be very high. If one where in an Airplane at 10,000 ft it would need to be the Mother of all waves.

What?  No it wouldn't.  As the distance of your line of sight increases (at 1K feet above sea level) the space between sea level and your line of sight decreases as it approaches zero.  You will find, that the further out you draw your line of sight, the smaller and smaller the obstruction will have to be to block your view of infinity.   Ignoring diffusion of light of course.

[huh?]

Yes but that distance is well above what can be seen through the atmosphere.

If I where 10,000 up in a airplane the limit of vision is optimistically 250 miles if I where on the flat earth half way between the center and outside the distance to the horizon would be more than 12,000 miles

If you draw a direct line from the airplane to the horizon and then measure out the distance you can actually see the wave would still need to be nearly 9,900 feet. to block the horizon.

Of course the closer you get to the horizon the smaller the wave would need to be. So if you where 10' from the edge of the flat earth and one foot off the ground it would only take a small bump.

[huh?]

Another problem with the Horizon in the Fe model is that the ocean is essentially in a bowl with mysterious ice cliffs around it that are somewhere between 300 and 1000 ft. high

If this where in fact true and the ocean where flat than no ship would ever appear above the horizon.

[geckothegeek]

Another problem with the Horizon in the Fe model is that the ocean is essentially in a bowl with mysterious ice cliffs around it that are somewhere between 300 and 1000 ft. high

If this where in fact true and the ocean where flat than no ship would ever appear above the horizon.

I have seen some posts where the height of the ice ring, ice cliff, or ice wall (?)  was listed as 150 feet ?
Question is : If the ice cliffs have never been seen, how do you know how high they really are ?

[huh?]

I believe that there are pictures of glaciers that are often used to portray the ice cliffs and it appears in Google Earth that there are many real cliffs.

I think in FE theory it is better to just assume that it is a mysterious and inhospitable place and do not ask too many questions.

Use the Jedi mind trick:

-there are no planes that can fly above the weather

-you do not want to fly out there and find out for yourself. 

[geckothegeek]

I believe that there are pictures of glaciers that are often used to portray the ice cliffs and it appears in Google Earth that there are many real cliffs.

I think in FE theory it is better to just assume that it is a mysterious and inhospitable place and do not ask too many questions.

Use the Jedi mind trick:

-there are no planes that can fly above the weather

-you do not want to fly out there and find out for yourself.

"gotham"  a "flat earther " on the other Flat Earth Society Forum Website  uses a close-up cropped photo of a portion of an ice shelf, ice cliff, ice berg or glacier (not certain of the source ) as his signature line , apparently as proof of the ice ring.

[huh?]

Yeah I read one story that said there are U.N. guards posted all around it and no one was allowed in

So they have invented some pretty elaborate excuses why they can not go there.

But anyway if it is only 150 feet high that is still higher than most ships

[geckothegeek]

Yeah I read one story that said there are U.N. guards posted all around it and no one was allowed in

So they have invented some pretty elaborate excuses why they can not go there.

But anyway if it is only 150 feet high that is still higher than most ships

The uppermost masts on some newer ships would probably be close to or even higher than 150 feet.

One time I asked the question "Who guarded the ice ring before NASA"  but I don't remember ever getting  an answer ?  My guess was a detail from the Swiss Guard ?