[jimbob]

I have derived a formula (see working below) considering a sphere of 6371km to see how much of something is obscured for an observer of given height at given distance from a feature that is on the circles surface. (I will probably set this as an exercise for my students)

Formula derivation
https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg

and have applied it to comparing theoretical data in relation to results gathered from the video to see if we are on a sphere of radius 6371km

Data comparison (theoretical and actual)
https://pasteboard.co/HetXwJD.jpg

Data from video


As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface

Note, if you use this calculator app and copy in the formula link, you can check the calculations
https://www.desmos.com/calculator

Formula copy/paste
y=6371-\sqrt{\left(\left(6371\right)^2-\left(47.9-\sqrt{\left(.002+6371\right)^2-\left(6371\right)^2}\right)^2\right)}

[limprichard]

I have derived a formula (see working below) considering a sphere of 6371km to see how much of something is obscured for an observer of given height at given distance from a feature that is on the circles surface. (I will probably set this as an exercise for my students)

Formula derivation
https://pasteboard.co/Her0ToJ.jpg

and have applied it to comparing theoretical data in relation to results gathered from the video to see if we are on a sphere of radius 6371km

Data comparison (theoretical and actual)
https://pasteboard.co/HetXwJD.jpg

Data from video


As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface

Note, if you use this calculator app and copy in the formula link, you can check the calculations
https://www.desmos.com/calculator

Formula copy/paste
y=6371-\sqrt{\left(\left(6371\right)^2-\left(47.9-\sqrt{\left(.002+6371\right)^2-\left(6371\right)^2}\right)^2\right)}

I see no Flat Earthers have commented on this. I have looked through it and if the formula is correct, then we have to be on a sphere of radius 6300km. Otherwise the findings in the video would be wrong.

[Westprog]

I see no Flat Earthers have commented on this. I have looked through it and if the formula is correct, then we have to be on a sphere of radius 6300km. Otherwise the findings in the video would be wrong.

I would have thought that Treep Ravisaras would be all over this, given the "calculations" that he's quite fond of.

[Tom Bishop]

As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface

Did you even watch that video? The experimenter does NOT maintain a constant altitude of "around 3m" above the ground. At one point he is 54+ feet above sea level. If your math relies on the observer maintaining 3m above sea level, this is not reflected in the video.

The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here and here. I suspect that there is some effort by the Youtube author in the OP to use the sinking ship effect to try and construct an accurate globe effect.

Regardless; if your math relies on the assumption of 3m above sea level, then it is clearly wrong from a cursory viewing of the video where the experimenter ascends to different heights for his pictures. Your effort to show that the sinking ship effect matches the Round Earth Theory is clearly a failure, since an altitude change between 3 meters and 54 feet would cause a difference of hundreds of feet of obfuscation at that distance. The conclusion of this being a good presentation of RET curvature is unsound.

[Curious Squirrel]

As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface

Did you even watch that video? The experimenter does NOT maintain a constant altitude of "around 3m" above the ground. At one point he is above 54+ feet above sea level. If your math relies on the observer maintaining 3m above sea level, this is not reflected in the video.

The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here and here. I suspect that there is some effort to use the sinking ship effect to try and construct an accurate globe effect.

Regardless; if your math relies on the assumption of 3m above sea level, then it is clearly wrong from a cursory viewing of the video where the experimenter ascends to different heights for his pictures. Your effort to show that the sinking ship effect matches the Round Earth Theory is clearly a failure, since an altitude change between 3 meters and 54 feet can cause a difference of hundreds of feet of obfuscation at that distance. Therefore you conclusion of this being a good presentation of RET curvature, which rests on the assumption of a 3 meter viewing height, is unsound.

Tom, do you just look for any way to attempt to discredit something when it clashes with your view? Even when your attempts to do so are clearly fallacious? Your argument has no ground to stand on. The relevant images are from approx. 3m above sea level. There is only a single one taken from 54 ft. up, and it's not included in the images being tested against the expected curvature. Clearly your own cursory viewing of the video was not enough. Try watching it again, with a bit more focus hmm?

[jimbob]

As you can see, there is a good match if the sphere we are on is 6371km in radius and viewing height is around 3m from sphere surface

Did you even watch that video? The experimenter does NOT maintain a constant altitude of "around 3m" above the ground. At one point he is 54+ feet above sea level (which is stated in the video), and seems to suggest that he is going higher as he takes the pictures. If your math relies on the observer maintaining 3m above sea level, this is not reflected in the video.

The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here and here. I suspect that there is some effort to use the sinking ship effect to try and construct an accurate globe effect.

Regardless; if your math relies on the assumption of 3m above sea level, then it is clearly wrong from a cursory viewing of the video where the experimenter ascends to different heights for his pictures. Your effort to show that the sinking ship effect matches the Round Earth Theory is clearly a failure, since an altitude change between 3 meters and 54 feet would cause a difference of hundreds of feet of obfuscation at that distance. The conclusion of this being a good presentation of RET curvature is unsound.

Most are from around 3m however i will explain as your math seems to be sadly lacking. 3m to 15m wont make that much difference since we are talking about a triangle of lengths 25km upwards for one side and a variation of meters along the other, the angle changes marginally. Try the equation and see for yourself.
PS We know you are an incredible leader Tom and are just pulling our plonkers for the fun of it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgo2gQSdtg

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, do you just look for any way to attempt to discredit something when it clashes with your view? Even when your attempts to do so are clearly fallacious? Your argument has no ground to stand on. The relevant images are from approx. 3m above sea level. There is only a single one taken from 54 ft. up, and it's not included in the images being tested against the expected curvature. Clearly your own cursory viewing of the video was not enough. Try watching it again, with a bit more focus hmm?

The author does not give his altitude for those shots in the video. The author is taking the pictures from the shore at all times. The author does not tell us what his altitude is. We can clearly see that the shoreline is not even in altitude, seeing that at one point the shoreline turns into a very steep slope where the 54 feet altitude picture is taken.

In some shots he is looking down at a beach, but we don't know what the slope of that beach is or what his height is. The imprecision of this experiment invalidates it.

Most are from around 3m.

Why are you assuming that when you are on the shoreline looking down at a beach, that you are 3m in altitude? The author does not give his altitude for those shots anywhere in that video.

If this is supposed to show that the size of the Round Earth perfectly matches the sinking ship effect, then we need more precision on how high the observer is.

[Tom Bishop]

Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles

Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.

4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden

That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.

[jimbob]

Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles

Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.

4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden

That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.

How much would be hidden if the earth was flat .....and behind what? 400 feet are some mighty big waves.

[jimbob]

Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles

Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.

4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden

That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.

Anyone want to look at the video and give an estimate for the heights viewed for each distance, preferably one roundearther and one flat earther (if there are any)
 Or perhaps a "flat earther" pretender like Tom. Go on Tom I know you like winding us up. Excellent opportunity to irritate and aggravate some RE who think you’re serious.

[inquisitive]

Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles

Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.

4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden

That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.

How about you actually do some measurements.

[Westprog]

Look at the metabunk calculator: https://www.metabunk.org/curve/

Put 29.7 mi as the distance in miles

Put in 4 feet and 9 feet as the observer's height.

4 feet = 495.19 feet hidden
9 feet = 415.34 feet hidden

That is a 80 foot distance, from only a slight difference in height. This is why we need to know the exact height these photos are being taken from if we are going to assess whether they "perfectly match" RET predictions.

No, we don't. The evidence clearly shows a round Earth. It doesn't show, to an arbitrary degree of precision, the radius of the Earth. However, they demonstrate that the Earth is round quite clearly. There's no compatibility between these observations and any possible flat Earth theory.

[Tom Bishop]

No, we don't. The evidence clearly shows a round Earth. It doesn't show, to an arbitrary degree of precision, the radius of the Earth. However, they demonstrate that the Earth is round quite clearly. There's no compatibility between these observations and any possible flat Earth theory.

The fact that things can be seen to sink in the ocean is not enough. Rowbotham specifically addresses the sinking ship effect in Earth Not a Globe. Half of the book is dedicated to the study of water convexity and the disappearance of bodies. The effect is studied on calm bodies of water, and it is also studied on bodies of water containing waves and swells. It was found that the effect only occurs where the water is disturbed. The observation of bodies sinking on seas and on inland seas is the expected result under Flat Earth Theory. Take a look at Earth Not a Globe sometime.

[xenotolerance]

You keep directing people to read Earth Not A Globe, and meanwhile most of us have already and found it unconvincing at best. His diagrams are a display of bad geometry: Figures 73 and 74 with the circles are just straight up wrong. Better information can be found at wikipedia.

anyway, anyone with a telescope can make these observations for themselves. Tom's objection about the observer's height not being constant doesn't hold water in the face of the consistent result: These observations are impossible on a flat Earth.

[Tom Bishop]

Sinking ships is the expected result under Flat Earth Theory when looking at the sea. Please stop insisting that it is not. Rowbotham describes which conditions the sinking effect is expected under. These pictures are taken across the North Sea, and therefore, according to our materials, the sinking effect is the expected result.

See the links I provided earlier:

The cause of the sinking ship effect seen at sea, and on inland seas, is well explained in Earth Not a Globe. See Rowbotham's chapters on the Sinking Ship here and here.

Now, if you want to actually address our material, feel free. Please do not tell us what we do and do not predict under our theory without actually having understood it yourself.

[xenotolerance]

You expect them because your understanding of perspective is wrong.

Your understanding of perspective is wrong because it allows you to explain why things that appear to show the Earth is a sphere don't actually.

This is useful because your premise is that the Earth is flat.

but it isn't

also, Tom, I encourage you to respond to my objection to the geometry in the diagrams. that's definitely more interesting for both of us

also:
'Please do not tell us what we do and do not predict under our theory without actually having understood it yourself.' fucking lol

[Tom Bishop]

Disagreeing with the explanation is one thing. Disagreeing with the observation is quite another. Rowbotham saw the sinking ship effect on the sea, which he did not see on calmer bodies of water. In order to properly combat the material of a work, there must be an understanding of what is being claimed.

Rowbotham's work has been the basis of Flat Earth Theory over 150 years. You did not understand it because you did not read Earth Not a Globe, and the Youtube debunkers do not understand it because they have not read Earth Not a Globe. If there was better understanding on what the Flat Earth Theory actually claims, then perhaps there could be some progress in these debunk attempts. As it is, these efforts have gone to waste. They have only shown us what we expected to see.

To combat us you must combat the source material the theory is based on, not your own personal idea of Flat Earth Theory.

[xenotolerance]

I read Earth Not A Globe cover to cover before I made my first post on the site.

So, no

editing to elaborate:

This is gatekeeping, to say 'you have to read up before you can make a point.' It's a fake goalpost. Having read the book you so confidently told me I had not read, I am prepared to write in depth about its various weaknesses as a piece of scientific writing, and its interest as a historical piece. I do not have to do this before making an argument past it. The sinking ship effect, as described by Rowbotham, does not exist. It's not how things work. So, I ignore it when claiming these results are impossible on flat Earth.

if you like, we can start another redundant thread about the sinking ship effect, where we link to videos that show obvious, readily apparent evidence that Rowbotham was incorrect, and you pretend not to notice. I'm up for it. but that's not this thread.

[SiDawg]

I directly combat the information in enag in a previous post and have had no response (distance to sunset). This is something that isn't explained in enag, and seems to be a huge oversight. How can the distance to the sun at sunset in the northern summer, be half the distance to the sun at sunset in the southern summer? This is not debating the flat earth understanding of perspective, it is accepting it as true. Enag shows that the sun sets when it reaches a certain distance because there is a diagonal line down to a vanishing point. Ergo, when the sun sets, then the sun has reached a certain distance. How can the distance required be different in northern summer vs southern summer???

https://i.imgur.com/TLTCwYj.jpg

[inquisitive]

Disagreeing with the explanation is one thing. Disagreeing with the observation is quite another. Rowbotham saw the sinking ship effect on the sea, which he did not see on calmer bodies of water. In order to properly combat the material of a work, there must be an understanding of what is being claimed.

Rowbotham's work has been the basis of Flat Earth Theory over 150 years. You did not understand it because you did not read Earth Not a Globe, and the Youtube debunkers do not understand it because they have not read Earth Not a Globe. If there was better understanding on what the Flat Earth Theory actually claims, then perhaps there could be some progress in these debunk attempts. As it is, these efforts have gone to waste. They have only shown us what we expected to see.

To combat us you must combat the source material the theory is based on, not your own personal idea of Flat Earth Theory.

Have you seen this effect?