[Tom Bishop]

ODD TV has created a new Flat Earth Presentation that I found to be palatable for the newcomer.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

[Tom Bishop]

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

[douglips]

The first misconception:
https://flatearth.ws/oblate-spheroid
The difference is tiny, like 40 pixels out of 11,000, but it's measurable.

Next, long distance photography.
Standard refraction explains it.
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-443-km-distance-mountains-visible.t8980/

Next, it is just asserted that the bolivian salt flats "defy curvature". No detail is given, just some pretty pictures.

Next, "the horizon always rises to eye level, here take a look at this high altitude photograph." No measurements are given at the pixel level which may (or may not) show curvature. No attempt is made.

Next, curvature due to fish-eye lenses. That's fine, but they also remove curvature if the horizon is below the center of the frame.

In that same shot, the Felix Baumgartner photo, they say that it's weird that you only see New Mexico because how can you be looking at 75% of the earth and it's all New Mexico? This is evidence for curvature, as this means the horizon is not as far away as it should be on a flat earth.

Next, boats disappearing behind the horizon. A small number of examples are shown that don't appear to demonstrate curvature, but no examples are given of the cases where ships are clearly occulted by the horizon.

Definition of horizon and horizontal are similar. This is a new argument, I guess it's "proof by etymology". I can't tell if that's terrible or terrific, but I guess those both mean the same thing so whatever.

Next up: "Water doesn't curve" asserted without evidence, and only backed up by "the wisdom of the ancients".

Next, crepuscular rays show us the sun is 20 miles away. Please tell me how far away the train station is by looking at the railroad tracks.

Next, the sunset is caused by perspective.


OK, Now I'm bored. Sorry.

[Tom Bishop]

Next, long distance photography.
Standard refraction explains it.
https://www.metabunk.org/explained-443-km-distance-mountains-visible.t8980/

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

The notion is a bit absurd, wouldn't you say?

[douglips]

Optics is a well understood field. In your profile picture you are wearing objects on your face that bend light in well understood ways.

We know that the atmosphere is denser at lower altitudes, and we know the relationship between the density of air and index of refraction.

Anybody who has studied even a little bit of optics will tell you that refraction is very real and the notion of ignoring it is what would be absurd.

EDIT: To add:

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

It hardly makes the earth look flat. If the earth were to look flat you could see the bottom of the mountains, not just the very tip top.

Note that the arrow in the picture is pointing to the wrong peak - the very farthest peak is one of the less prominent peaks, because of the curvature of the earth.
Here's a correctly annotated image:

From here:
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

[Tumeni]

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable.

It almost sounds as though you agree that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

[Tumeni]

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

There wouldn't be a Wiki about it if there were not evidence. There are 28 references in this page to the supporting evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Take your time, follow them all, establish which of them have been arrived at through empirical work, then come back to us. This may involve trips to libraries.

If you're back in 10 minutes, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.

[AATW]

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

There's a difference between measurable and observable.
It may be possible to measure this difference, but it would be too subtle to notice just by looking.
Same as horizon dip, it's not obvious but you can measure it and you have been shown several ways to do so.
I'm looking forward to the results of your experiment on that.

[AATW]

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

Always?

[Tumeni]

In that same shot, the Felix Baumgartner photo, they say that it's weird that you only see New Mexico because how can you be looking at 75% of the earth and it's all New Mexico? This is evidence for curvature, as this means the horizon is not as far away as it should be on a flat earth.

The limit of his visibility can be derived with the maths and trig appropriate to a spherical cap

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cap

If you do this, the limit of visibility to the North was somewhere around Denver, to the South the southern edge of Coahuila in Mexico, to the East - Houston, and a little beyond Dallas, and West - almost halfway between Tucson and San Diego.

So, the visibility is of New Mexico, with bits of the surrounding states and some of (real) Mexico. This matches with the observations of the Team Hoaxers who claim it's a hoax BECAUSE there's no water visible. Well, there's no water visible because all the significant seas and oceans are OVER THE HORIZON.

75% of the Earth? No way.

[AATW]

Their first point about NASA images being a perfect circle. Here's a properly high res photo of earth from space

https://cdn.pmylund.com/blog/content/suomi_npp-blue_marble.jpg

Taken in 2012. Looks like a perfect circle.
Now put it into a paint package and see if you can fit a perfect circle round it...

That's as far as I got into the video so far but it's not looking good. And that's the trouble with these videos, and all flat earth ideas.
They're built on misunderstanding, ignorance or just plain untruths about science.

[Tom Bishop]

It hardly makes the earth look flat. If the earth were to look flat you could see the bottom of the mountains, not just the very tip top.

Note that the arrow in the picture is pointing to the wrong peak - the very farthest peak is one of the less prominent peaks, because of the curvature of the earth.

Are you asking why the furthest peak is lower? You may as well ask why a one story building in the foreground of a picture can be taller than a ten story building in the background of a picture.

Here's a correctly annotated image:

https://beyondrange.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/finestrelles-gaspard-marc-bret-bh.png

From here:
https://beyondhorizons.eu/2016/08/03/pic-de-finestrelles-pic-gaspard-ecrins-443-km/

Those peaks should be well below the horizon.

[Tom Bishop]

Is there any evidence for the existence of this "standard refraction" that always makes the earth look flat when viewing far away objects?

There wouldn't be a Wiki about it if there were not evidence. There are 28 references in this page to the supporting evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Take your time, follow them all, establish which of them have been arrived at through empirical work, then come back to us. This may involve trips to libraries.

If you're back in 10 minutes, everyone will KNOW you haven't bothered.

You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

Ridiculous.

The Canigou Peak Seen From Allauch, France, is a known phenomenon that is seen every year when the sun sets behind the Canigou. I assume, again, that you are claiming that this is a mirage that always exists, seen on a regular basis, and without radical distortion to the image, that makes the round earth look flat?

[nickrulercreator]

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

Can I get a source for this?

[Tumeni]

You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

No, you asked for evidence of "standard refraction". I provided it.

Whether or not it "always makes the earth look exactly flat" ..... I leave that open. But there is/are standard refraction indices.

[Tumeni]

JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

So... where and when was this "claimed"?

And do you agree that Himawari-8 takes photographs?

[Spycrab]

You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

The pot called. It said you're a black kettle.
You do realize you talk a big game about the wonders of perspective
that just so happens to be a permanent mirage that makes the earth look flat.
A permanent mirage that bends the sun's light to make it set
A permanent mirage that limits how far we can see
A permanent mirage that keeps the sun the same size.
Or maybe the atmosphere's being paid off by nasa.

[Bobby Shafto]

^Spycrab beat me to it, can't hurt to reiterate this point:

You are claiming that there is permanent mirage that always makes the earth look exactly flat?

Ridiculous.

After offering a collection of ad hoc "might be possible" explanations for phenomena that shouldn't happen if the earth was flat, I can't believe you posted this.

A permanent mirage is ridiculous, but these are not?
- a permanent atmospheric vapor layer that somehow causes the sun to appear larger at a rate that keeps it consistently the same apparent size from sun up to sun down.
- some permanent lensing medium that works for all locations/observers to bend light not just away from the surface to make the sun appear lower than it actually is, but also laterally to throw off azimuth measurement.
- some permanent mechanism that allows the sun's light to be cast in a spotlight pattern yet never be seen as anything but a sphere.
- and I haven't heard an ad hoc explanation for why sunrises/sunsets south of the equator are angled opposite of those north of the equator, but I'm sure there's some permanent "illusion"-type explanation for why it only appears that way.

Just draw a line from the camera location to that distant Canigou range and tell me where, along that line, you think the sun is over the flat earth as it's rising from that vantage point, without invoking some "could-be possible" explanation that is no less ridiculous as you say a "permanent mirage" would be.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

I found something wrong in the first two minutes.

"It's technically an oval so why does the blue marble look like a circle"

I looked it up and the difference is about 15 miles. The human eye would not be able to tell the difference between that and a perfect circle.

Not even gonna bother with the rest. I don't really want to watch a half-hour TV special and nitpick every little detail.

Actually the diameter at the equator is about 27 miles larger than the pole, and yes, it should be observable. In fact, JAXA/NASA has claimed that one can see the difference in the himawari-8 photographs.

Well then, can you tell me, just from eyeballing it, which of these are the perfect circles?



I'll give you a hint: 47 are perfect circles and 53 are slightly oblate.

I can make an answer key or larger version if needed. I can also produce the code that generated it to prove that the oblate ones exist.