The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: robintex on June 10, 2015, 09:07:19 PM

Title: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on June 10, 2015, 09:07:19 PM
I am back again after a period of banning for the nth time . I am told it was because of improper posting on the Q&A  section and should have been on the debate section of this forum.

I hope this is the proper section of the forum. If it isn't another banning wouldn't be too bad. That's the way this website works. You have to abide with it.

The distance to the horizon seems to be one of the main points for proof of a "Round Earth".

I would just like to post this for debate to see what answers the "Flat Earthers" are going to come up with.

The distance to the horizon  in miles is simply the calculation of 1.22 times the square root of the height in feet  of the height of the observer.  This is for a flat surface on a clear day with no effects of atmospheric conditions such as smog, smoke or fog to interfere with the view. On a clear day with a calm sea is the best place for demonstration. The higher the observer the farther is the horizon.

So why would  crow's nests be  necessary on ships if the earth was flat ? it would seem there would be no difference to the horizon from an observer on the bridge of a ship than from a person in the crow's nest if the earth was flat ?

I know in advance what the "Flat Earthers" are going to post for their definition of the distance to the horizon on a "Flat Earth" would be according to their computations. But I would like to see their answers in their own words.

In all reality, the fact that the earth is the globular shape that it is is an undeniable and true fact , but just for review I would like to see what the "Flat Earthers" have in their defense that the formula for the distance to the horizon is not true and valid.

This has been debated previously but I would like to see how this thread develops once more.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JerkFace on June 10, 2015, 10:24:11 PM
I posted this in an earlier thread,  I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.

From the time of Rowbotham, the flat earth believers quote chapter and verse on the distances to lighthouses, claiming they are visible much further out to sea than what curvature calculations predict.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level,   taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/7864/HYD8HA.png)

The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere  is  D =  3.86 * sqrt ( h )    h = height in meters,  D = distance in km.

The Planier lighthouse  is   66 meters asl,   and is visible for 43 km,   calculated distance is 43 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse      is 113 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 53 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse  is   82.5 meters asl,   and is visible for 50 km,   calculated distance is 47 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse  is 76 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 45 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km

The conclusion is that if you do the calculations properly,  the flat earth argument,  falls flat on its face ( once again )

For details of the formula derivation go to ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
Calculation of ducting effects.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html)
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: hello_there on June 11, 2015, 05:07:44 AM
I am back again after a period of banning for the nth time . I am told it was because of improper posting on the Q&A  section and should have been on the debate section of this forum.

I hope this is the proper section of the forum. If it isn't another banning wouldn't be too bad. That's the way this website works. You have to abide with it.

The distance to the horizon seems to be one of the main points for proof of a "Round Earth".

I would just like to post this for debate to see what answers the "Flat Earthers" are going to come up with.

The distance to the horizon  in miles is simply the calculation of 1.22 times the square root of the height in feet  of the height of the observer.  This is for a flat surface on a clear day with no effects of atmospheric conditions such as smog, smoke or fog to interfere with the view. On a clear day with a calm sea is the best place for demonstration. The higher the observer the farther is the horizon.

So why would  crow's nests be  necessary on ships if the earth was flat ? it would seem there would be no difference to the horizon from an observer on the bridge of a ship than from a person in the crow's nest if the earth was flat ?

I know in advance what the "Flat Earthers" are going to post for their definition of the distance to the horizon on a "Flat Earth" would be according to their computations. But I would like to see their answers in their own words.

In all reality, the fact that the earth is the globular shape that it is is an undeniable and true fact , but just for review I would like to see what the "Flat Earthers" have in their defense that the formula for the distance to the horizon is not true and valid.

This has been debated previously but I would like to see how this thread develops once more.

Your formula is indeed true and valid. Here is the proof:
http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg)
http://imageshack.com/a/img633/6079/B02EkU.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img633/6079/B02EkU.jpg)

Show us your formula and equations, Flat Earthers.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JerkFace on June 11, 2015, 05:17:50 AM
I am back again after a period of banning for the nth time . I am told it was because of improper posting on the Q&A  section and should have been on the debate section of this forum.

I hope this is the proper section of the forum. If it isn't another banning wouldn't be too bad. That's the way this website works. You have to abide with it.

The distance to the horizon seems to be one of the main points for proof of a "Round Earth".

I would just like to post this for debate to see what answers the "Flat Earthers" are going to come up with.

The distance to the horizon  in miles is simply the calculation of 1.22 times the square root of the height in feet  of the height of the observer.  This is for a flat surface on a clear day with no effects of atmospheric conditions such as smog, smoke or fog to interfere with the view. On a clear day with a calm sea is the best place for demonstration. The higher the observer the farther is the horizon.

So why would  crow's nests be  necessary on ships if the earth was flat ? it would seem there would be no difference to the horizon from an observer on the bridge of a ship than from a person in the crow's nest if the earth was flat ?

I know in advance what the "Flat Earthers" are going to post for their definition of the distance to the horizon on a "Flat Earth" would be according to their computations. But I would like to see their answers in their own words.

In all reality, the fact that the earth is the globular shape that it is is an undeniable and true fact , but just for review I would like to see what the "Flat Earthers" have in their defense that the formula for the distance to the horizon is not true and valid.

This has been debated previously but I would like to see how this thread develops once more.

Your formula is indeed true and valid. Here is the proof:
http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg)
http://imageshack.com/a/img633/6079/B02EkU.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img633/6079/B02EkU.jpg)

Show us your formula and equations, Flat Earthers.

You should include the standard correction factor for refraction,  which makes the formula  1.32  not 1.22 times square root height.   
Refer to http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)

For a quick geodetic surveying 101 lesson  (http://
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: hello_there on June 11, 2015, 05:39:58 AM
I am back again after a period of banning for the nth time . I am told it was because of improper posting on the Q&A  section and should have been on the debate section of this forum.

I hope this is the proper section of the forum. If it isn't another banning wouldn't be too bad. That's the way this website works. You have to abide with it.

The distance to the horizon seems to be one of the main points for proof of a "Round Earth".

I would just like to post this for debate to see what answers the "Flat Earthers" are going to come up with.

The distance to the horizon  in miles is simply the calculation of 1.22 times the square root of the height in feet  of the height of the observer.  This is for a flat surface on a clear day with no effects of atmospheric conditions such as smog, smoke or fog to interfere with the view. On a clear day with a calm sea is the best place for demonstration. The higher the observer the farther is the horizon.

So why would  crow's nests be  necessary on ships if the earth was flat ? it would seem there would be no difference to the horizon from an observer on the bridge of a ship than from a person in the crow's nest if the earth was flat ?

I know in advance what the "Flat Earthers" are going to post for their definition of the distance to the horizon on a "Flat Earth" would be according to their computations. But I would like to see their answers in their own words.

In all reality, the fact that the earth is the globular shape that it is is an undeniable and true fact , but just for review I would like to see what the "Flat Earthers" have in their defense that the formula for the distance to the horizon is not true and valid.

This has been debated previously but I would like to see how this thread develops once more.

Your formula is indeed true and valid. Here is the proof:
http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg)
http://imageshack.com/a/img633/6079/B02EkU.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img633/6079/B02EkU.jpg)

Show us your formula and equations, Flat Earthers.

You should include the standard correction factor for refraction,  which makes the formula  1.32  not 1.22 times square root height.   
Refer to http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)

For a quick geodetic surveying 101 lesson  (http://)

Thanks Rayzor for the correction. I have added refraction into consideration.
http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img909/4246/NDa8Of.jpg)
http://imageshack.com/a/img910/5316/dWRUy0.jpg (http://imageshack.com/a/img910/5316/dWRUy0.jpg)

Now, show us your formula and equations, Flat Earthers.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on June 11, 2015, 10:50:31 AM
Thanks very much to all concerned , but these are all "Round Earth" answers. ::)

I was really looking for some "Flat Earth" answers. ???

And I have checked this out personally. When I was in the Navy I was assigned maintenance on the surface search radar. When I observed a ship on the horizon I would check the range on the radar. It always agreed with the formula.
Actually, I didn't know the formula for estimating the distance to the horizon at that time, but the radar would have agreed with the visual sighting estimate. I was sort of doing this in reverse. Checking the distance on the radar and then doing the visual sighting.

Navy lookouts had a manual showing the distances to the horizon for various heights. I understand they are very adept at estimating distances and comparing them with the radar in their drills and actual operations.

Flat Earthers" are always asking "Have you done this yourself ?" I have. ;D
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: Misero on June 11, 2015, 12:22:03 PM
Come on, flatties. You cannot deny this, and you can't say it's bs with no evidence, just respond.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: hello_there on June 12, 2015, 11:52:25 AM
So, it's been a while, and there hasn't been any response from the Flat Earthers. Which reminds me of this:

The higher you climb the further you can see. 

That's not possible on a flat earth.  That's it,   case closed,  now can we all go off to the pub?

No Flat Earther is showing any kind of disagreement. So... yeah. We can all go to the pub then ;D
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: Dog on June 12, 2015, 09:17:12 PM
B-b-but...... air density!
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on June 12, 2015, 09:17:54 PM
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.

I had more fun with my very first post about how some amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon and  calculated the distance from the earth to the moon. It went on for 28 pages and 549 replies until jroa eventually locked it for lack of response from flat earthers.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1554902#msg1554902 (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1554902#msg1554902)

Last one out turn off the lights.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: modestman on June 12, 2015, 09:20:46 PM
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.

I had more fun with my very first post about how some amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon and  calculated the distance from the earth to the moon. But it eventually got locked, too.

Last one out turn off the lights.
you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on June 12, 2015, 09:32:20 PM
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.

I had more fun with my very first post about how some amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon and  calculated the distance from the earth to the moon. But it eventually got locked, too.

Last one out turn off the lights.
you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.

Done.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: modestman on June 12, 2015, 09:36:18 PM
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.

I had more fun with my very first post about how some amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon and  calculated the distance from the earth to the moon. But it eventually got locked, too.

Last one out turn off the lights.
you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.

Done.
Good,so it's your last message on board ? in this site ?
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on June 12, 2015, 09:41:52 PM
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.

I had more fun with my very first post about how some amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon and  calculated the distance from the earth to the moon. But it eventually got locked, too.

Last one out turn off the lights.
you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.

Done.
Good,so it's your last message on board ? in this site ?

Not by a long shot. This website is a never ending source for fun and entertainment and I am really appreciative of the efforts of the Flat Earth Society for making it so.
So I will be around for a while. I have learned a lot in the process.
Just ending this as far as this particular thread is concerned although I would have liked to have heard something from a flat earther.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: modestman on June 12, 2015, 09:45:31 PM
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.

I had more fun with my very first post about how some amateur radio operators bounced signals off the moon and  calculated the distance from the earth to the moon. But it eventually got locked, too.

Last one out turn off the lights.
you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.

Done.
Good,so it's your last message on board ? in this site ?

Not by a long shot. This website is a never ending source for fun and entertainment and I am really appreciative of the efforts of the Flat Earth Society for making it so.
So I will be around for a while. I have learned a lot in the process.
Just ending this as far as this particular thread is concerned although I would have liked to have heard something from a flat earther.
Sure.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: fjr66 on November 12, 2017, 06:43:37 AM
I posted this in an earlier thread,  I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.

From the time of Rowbotham, the flat earth believers quote chapter and verse on the distances to lighthouses, claiming they are visible much further out to sea than what curvature calculations predict.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level,   taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/7864/HYD8HA.png)

The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere  is  D =  3.86 * sqrt ( h )    h = height in meters,  D = distance in km.

The Planier lighthouse  is   66 meters asl,   and is visible for 43 km,   calculated distance is 43 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse      is 113 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 53 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse  is   82.5 meters asl,   and is visible for 50 km,   calculated distance is 47 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse  is 76 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 45 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km

The conclusion is that if you do the calculations properly,  the flat earth argument,  falls flat on its face ( once again )

For details of the formula derivation go to ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
Calculation of ducting effects.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html)
Just sit or lay down on the beach  so your eyes (line of sight) just 10 cm above sea level (equal 0.1 meters),
according to your formula, the horizon just 1.2 km away, but you will see more far than that.
or inversery, climb up to the mountain so your line of sight 100 meters above sea level, are you see the object 38.6 km away?
So that formula not fit with the reality, because the earth is flat.
In fact if we climb up to top of the mountain up to 300 meters, there is no something visible beyond the horizon.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 12, 2017, 11:32:31 AM
I posted this in an earlier thread,  I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.

From the time of Rowbotham, the flat earth believers quote chapter and verse on the distances to lighthouses, claiming they are visible much further out to sea than what curvature calculations predict.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level,   taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/7864/HYD8HA.png)

The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere  is  D =  3.86 * sqrt ( h )    h = height in meters,  D = distance in km.

The Planier lighthouse  is   66 meters asl,   and is visible for 43 km,   calculated distance is 43 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse      is 113 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 53 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse  is   82.5 meters asl,   and is visible for 50 km,   calculated distance is 47 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse  is 76 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 45 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km

The conclusion is that if you do the calculations properly,  the flat earth argument,  falls flat on its face ( once again )

For details of the formula derivation go to ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
Calculation of ducting effects.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html)
Just sit or lay down on the beach  so your eyes (line of sight) just 10 cm above sea level (equal 0.1 meters),
according to your formula, the horizon just 1.2 km away, but you will see more far than that.
or inversery, climb up to the mountain so your line of sight 100 meters above sea level, are you see the object 38.6 km away?
So that formula not fit with the reality, because the earth is flat.
In fact if we climb up to top of the mountain up to 300 meters, there is no something visible beyond the horizon.

What is this based on? I don't think simply saying 'the horizon should be 1.2 km away but you can see much further than that' really cuts it.

Can you give an example where your eye height being 10 cm off the ground allows you to view the horizon more than 1.2 km away?
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 12, 2017, 12:08:08 PM
Just sit or lay down on the beach  so your eyes (line of sight) just 10 cm above sea level (equal 0.1 meters),
according to your formula, the horizon just 1.2 km away, but you will see more far than that.
That will depend if the there is extra refraction at the water's surface which often occurs.
If it doesn't, then you will just see those 1.2 km of Earth.
You can still see things that are further than that distance, which are then higher than sea level.

or inversery, climb up to the mountain so your line of sight 100 meters above sea level, are you see the object 38.6 km away?
So that formula not fit with the reality, because the earth is flat.
In fact if we climb up to top of the mountain up to 300 meters, there is no something visible beyond the horizon.
The horizon is those 38.6 km away, unless there are taller things in the way.

But both of these are just your claims with no backing at all.
I haven't measured it myself, but I know that the higher I am, the further away the horizon is, and it isn't due to limited resolving ability.

Meanwhile, on a FE, your height should have no effect on the distance to the horizon.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: gotham on November 12, 2017, 01:45:48 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.       
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: LuggerSailor on November 12, 2017, 02:36:12 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.     
Wrong on all counts!

In particular, the fact that the earth is a globe is used to determine distance off when observing the loom of a lighthouse changing to the blink of a rising light http://www.sailtrain.co.uk/navigation/rising.htm



Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on November 12, 2017, 07:14:48 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.     
Really?
And we do "inquire with the sea faring community to confirm" the claims about the Globe,
but not of the day-sailors who couldn't care less about the shape of the earth, go and ask those who sail long distances if the earth is flat.

It's so strange that you never back anything up with evidence, but look at:
Quote
(http://www.boatsafe.com/newimages/header.jpg)
How to Calculate the Distance to the Horizon

Have you ever been out on a leisurely cruise and suddenly wondered, "How far it is to the horizon?" Or maybe your destination is a port that has a lighthouse and you wonder "How far away will I be when I see the lighthouse?" (Well, you're in luck, even if you are a sick unit that thinks of these sorts of things - so are we.) We have the answer!

Of course you can find tables that do the calculation for you in numerous navigation books, almost every book that talks about passagemaking, the Coast Pilot, almanacs, etc. But what if you didn't have any of these references onboard? How could you calculate the distance to the horizon or the "distance off" if you know the height of an object?

It's simple, really. If you want to know the distance to the horizon you simply have to know your height of eye. That is the distance that your eyes are off the surface of the water.

If you're in a jon boat, that would probably be about three feet (if you are sitting like you should be in a jon boat). Of course, if you were in a jon boat you probably wouldn't care how far the horizon was.

Anyway, I digress. If you are on the tuna tower of a sport fishing boat you may be 15, 20, 25 feet above the surface of the water.

Once you know your height of eye you simply plug that into the following formula:
1.17 times the square root of your height of eye = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles
For example, if your height of eye is 9 feet above the surface of the water, the formula would be:
1.17 times the square root of 9 = Distance to the horizon in nautical miles.
1.17 3 = 3.51 nautical miles
If you want to calculate the distance at which an object becomes visible, you must know your height of eye and the height of the object. You then do the same calculation for your distance to the horizon and the object's distance to the horizon and add the distances together. For example:
                    You have the same height of eye of 9 feet so your distance to the horizon is still 3.51 nautical miles. You're approaching a port that has a lighthouse that is shown on your chart to have a height of 81 feet. Using the same formula you would find that 1.17 times the square root of 81 or (1.17 9) = 10.53 nautical miles (the light house can be seen 10.53 nautical miles over the horizon)

By adding the two together: 3.51 + 10.53 = 14.04 nautical miles,
you should be able to see the lighthouse when you are 14.04 nautical miles away.

     (http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/horizon.gif)
Yes, those people the actually "So down to the sea in ships boats" seem to think that the earth is actually a Globe.
And this post (on tfes.org) shows that the "Lookout Training Handbook NAVEDTRA 12968-D" shows that the USN trained their lookouts in the same sort if thing:
Geodetic Surveyor Straightens Out The Flat Earth Reality Reply #45 on: March 14, 2016, 12:46:32 PM (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4751.msg92210#msg92210).
Maybe the USN really thought the earth to be a Globe.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: Sam Hill on November 12, 2017, 08:34:18 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.
A fine candidate for inclusion in this thread (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72616.0).
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 12, 2017, 11:06:44 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.
It has the more important task of allowing them to see ships at a longer distance than is capable from the deck.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.
Quite the opposite.
The observe the horizon which varies as the change height (such as going up to the crow's nest).
They observe it move away from them as they move towards it.
They observe that ignoring refraction, while they can see the horizon it is irrelevant as to what the atmosphere is.
They also observe things disappear from the bottom up as they sail away from it.
All clearly indicating a round Earth.

Yes, the horizon is flat at sea, as you would expect it to be considering it is a circle centred on a point slightly below you.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.     
Yet not one of these RE claims has been shown to be wrong, nor have any of the FE claims been shown to support a FE and be true.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 12, 2017, 11:08:43 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.     

This is actual nonsense. I would refute your claims, but that would require what you wrote to actually make sense...
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on November 13, 2017, 05:33:21 AM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.
Ha!  Good one.

 
Quote
They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.
This isn't even parsable English.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: fjr66 on November 13, 2017, 10:32:49 AM
I posted this in an earlier thread,  I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.

From the time of Rowbotham, the flat earth believers quote chapter and verse on the distances to lighthouses, claiming they are visible much further out to sea than what curvature calculations predict.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level,   taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/7864/HYD8HA.png)

The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere  is  D =  3.86 * sqrt ( h )    h = height in meters,  D = distance in km.

The Planier lighthouse  is   66 meters asl,   and is visible for 43 km,   calculated distance is 43 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse      is 113 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 53 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse  is   82.5 meters asl,   and is visible for 50 km,   calculated distance is 47 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse  is 76 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 45 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km

The conclusion is that if you do the calculations properly,  the flat earth argument,  falls flat on its face ( once again )

For details of the formula derivation go to ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
Calculation of ducting effects.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html)


you check this:
http://fjr66.blogspot.co.id/2017/11/distance-to-specific-height-of-object.html
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 13, 2017, 01:23:54 PM
I posted this in an earlier thread,  I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.

From the time of Rowbotham, the flat earth believers quote chapter and verse on the distances to lighthouses, claiming they are visible much further out to sea than what curvature calculations predict.
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level,   taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.

(http://imageshack.com/a/img537/7864/HYD8HA.png)

The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere  is  D =  3.86 * sqrt ( h )    h = height in meters,  D = distance in km.

The Planier lighthouse  is   66 meters asl,   and is visible for 43 km,   calculated distance is 43 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse      is 113 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 53 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse  is   82.5 meters asl,   and is visible for 50 km,   calculated distance is 47 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse  is 76 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 45 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km

The conclusion is that if you do the calculations properly,  the flat earth argument,  falls flat on its face ( once again )

For details of the formula derivation go to ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717132700/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/horizon.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon)
Calculation of ducting effects.
http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html (http://web.archive.org/web/20131717125400/http://mintaka.sdsu.edu/GF/explain/atmos_refr/bending.html)


you check this:
http://fjr66.blogspot.co.id/2017/11/distance-to-specific-height-of-object.html
While his numbers don't match the formula, a key part which is missing is the height of the observer. I assume he is referring to some specific claim.
Your source also ignored refraction.

Using the heights and distances he has provided as "calculated distance" you need the following heights:
9.095399286
9.61262982
9.567977433
8.644971276
Yes, some variation, but all roughly 9 km.

If you use a height of 9 km, then you get the following distances:
42.93879
52.61236
46.64019
45.23070

Or rounded to the nearest km:
43
53
47
45

Matching what he said.

So the big issue is the 3.86.

If you take the radius of Earth in Mm and the height in m, giving the distance in km, the formula is:
D=sqrt(2*R)*sqrt(h).
Putting in the common value of 6.371 Mm for R, this gives:
D=sqrt(2*6.371)*sqrt(h)
=~3.57*sqrt(h).

But that doesn't account for refraction.
The simple way to account for standard refraction is to pretend R is larger (there is math supporting it which I wont go into here).  The common value used is 7/6, that is R is replaced by 7R/6, such as that you get
D=sqrt(2*(7/6)*R*h)
which means we multiply our previous number by sqrt(7/6)=1.08012345
That gives us:
D=~3.856*sqrt(h/m) km.
Which when rounded slightly more gives the 3.86 figure he had.

Any objections?
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on November 13, 2017, 02:53:43 PM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Here is a plot of lighthouse visibility versus height of the light above sea level,  taking into account standard correction for refraction and a bridge height of 30 ft above the water line.
<< plot missing >>
The formula for calculating distance to the horizon, including refraction correction for standard atmosphere  is  D =  3.86 * sqrt ( h )    h = height in meters,  D = distance in km.

The Planier lighthouse  is   66 meters asl,   and is visible for 43 km,   calculated distance is 43 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 29 km
The Jeddah lighthouse      is 113 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 53 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 38 km
The Ile Vierge lighthouse  is   82.5 meters asl,   and is visible for 50 km,   calculated distance is 47 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 33 km
The Genoa lighthouse  is 76 meters asl,  and is visible for 46 km,   calculated distance is 45 km,   Flat Earthers claim the calculated value is 31 km
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

you check this:
http://fjr66.blogspot.co.id/2017/11/distance-to-specific-height-of-object.html
Your calculations are fine, though you should note that Rayzor's post included: "taking into account standard correction for refraction".
Standard refraction is included by simply increasing the earth's radius by a factor of 7/6.

When "standard refraction" is included, your calculations agree quite well.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 13, 2017, 07:36:49 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.     

Gotham
This is the worst bit of nonsense I have yet witnessed.
And that is saying something.
There is not one bit of truth in the whole thing.

It makes about as much sense as your photo that you post that you claim is the ice wall.

I think you would have saved  yourself some embarassment if you had talked to someone - anyone - in the  navy - any country's navy.
They know that the earth is a globe. They know that the distance that they can see to the horizon depends on their height above the sea. The higher the crow's nest is, the farther they can see. This is why crow's nests and some types of surface search radars are located on the tallest maps on ships.

The Navy has a  "Manual For Lookouts" showing distances for various heights.
A person standing up in a lifeboat at sea level might only be able to see 2 or 3 miles to the horizon.
A person on the bridge, 8 or 9 miles.
A person  in the crow's nest, 12 or 13 miles.

I suppose gotham's opening statement could be true if you have ever watched an old movie.
It was called "Titanic" and it came out in 1997.
Two characters cast as lookouts who were named Fleet and Lee could watch two characters romancing on the deck below called Rose and Jack. So I guess the  purpose of the crow's nest was to identify individuals aboard as friend or foe.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: gotham on November 14, 2017, 05:38:33 PM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on November 14, 2017, 10:04:12 PM
My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.
I guess you've never heard of gravity then, you know, what makes things fall down.
And on the Globe, down is towards the centre of the earth.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 14, 2017, 11:53:23 PM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.
I call bullshit.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.
Except you are yet to provide any experiences which indicate Earth is flat which can be verified.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.
You mean you have seen no arguments which you accept as rational because you will never accept anything as rational.

All the evidence indicates gravity is real and is a force (real or apparent) that is proportional to the product of masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them squared.
That explains why the oceans stay on a round Earth.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: Edge_Loop on November 15, 2017, 12:03:39 AM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

Why do you insist on commenting? You only undermine FE more each time you spew your nonsensical drivel.

You're making this too easy.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: gotham on November 15, 2017, 02:41:41 AM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

Why do you insist on commenting? You only undermine FE more each time you spew your nonsensical drivel.

You're making this too easy.

We then anxiously await truthful proof of your round Earth? The task of educating round Earth believers to the facts of proper Earth shape is more difficult when the student has their hands over their eyes and ears.     
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 15, 2017, 02:51:04 AM
We then anxiously await truthful proof of your round Earth? The task of educating round Earth believers to the facts of proper Earth shape is more difficult when the student has their hands over their eyes and ears.     
You mean like this thread has been about?
The mere existence of the horizon which does not correspond to the same location for everyone proves Earth is round.

We aren't the one with our hands over our eyes and ears.

Also, this is a place for debate. Stop treating us like ignorant children that you are here to teach. Start defending your claims and rationally responding to our arguments.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: 54N on November 15, 2017, 04:15:29 PM
The horizon you are measuring the distance to is a product of your viewpoint of the spherical earth.
If the earth were flat there would be no horizon to measure.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 15, 2017, 05:31:36 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.

Obviously, people who sail the sea are aware the Earth is flat.  They observe and commit to the fact of a flat horizon recognizing variance in the atmoplane causing inconsistency when attempting mathematical application to stated observations.

Round Earth believers are sadly mistaken in their claims relative to the horizon and have plenty of opportunities to inquire with the sea faring community to confirm FE claims.     

Wow ! And a great  big LOL !

I am no expert and  I completed my enlistment in the United States Navy many years  ago.
But........I would highly recommend that you not tell  your story to anyone in the USN.
Just don't talk to any QMC or BMC if you value your life !

Oooooh !......I would hate to hear what their response would be.......LOL

If you are just trolling and trying to post the most nonsensical thing of which you can think or make up....
Congratulations ! You have done very well !

P.S. As I recall, I thnk I read something somewhere some time ago that you wouldn't even be able to see a horizon on a flat earth.
All you would see would be "an indistinct blur which fades away at an indefinite distance in all directions."
Some FE correct me if I got that wrong.

Go down to  the  shore on a clear day and tell me what you see. Then go to the top story of a hotel near the shore and tell me what you see.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 15, 2017, 05:40:20 PM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

Why do you insist on commenting? You only undermine FE more each time you spew your nonsensical drivel.

You're making this too easy.

If you ascribe to the old FE doctrine of denial of reality, very well if you are happy with it.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 15, 2017, 07:49:05 PM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

That mention of the "Manual For Lookouts" is just more of your nonsense. It has been used for quite some time and has been proven to be accurate.

With all due respects  to you, I am still suggesting that you seek out a Chief Petty Officer Quartermaster (QMC) and/or a Chief Petty Officer Bo's'n Mate (BMC) and engage them in a friendly discussion of The Flat Earth and The Navy Manual For Lookouts for your suggestions for improvements for updating as you have mentioned. Cheers ! And I hope you enjoy your chat.They would have much more expertise on the subject of The Manual than I do.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 16, 2017, 08:29:19 AM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

That mention of the "Manual For Lookouts" is just more of your nonsense. It has been used for quite some time and has been proven to be accurate.

With all due respects  to you, I am still suggesting that you seek out a Chief Petty Officer Quartermaster (QMC) and/or a Chief Petty Officer Bo's'n Mate (BMC) and engage them in a friendly discussion of The Flat Earth and The Navy Manual For Lookouts for your suggestions for improvements for updating as you have mentioned. Cheers ! And I hope you enjoy your chat.They would have much more expertise on the subject of The Manual than I do.

Just repeating this for gotham in case he missed it or hasn't responded to my suggestion.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: inquisitive on November 16, 2017, 08:51:23 AM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 
What experience makes them think the earth is flat?  Measured distances?  Seeing the sun rise and set?
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 16, 2017, 09:48:44 AM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 
What experience makes them think the earth is flat?  Measured distances?  Seeing the sun rise and set?

That's why I am suggesting that they have a discussion with some Naval Personnel and report back on how things went.
Anyone on active or reserve duty or former veterans or retirees QMC's and/or BMC's. A Boot Camp Company Commander would be a good person to contact.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 16, 2017, 10:33:13 AM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 
What experience makes them think the earth is flat?  Measured distances?  Seeing the sun rise and set?

That's why I am suggesting that they have a discussion with some Naval Personnel and report back on how things went.
Anyone on active or reserve duty or former veterans or retirees QMC's and/or BMC's. A Boot Camp Company Commander would be a good person to contact.

If gotham doesn't want to do this, are there any FE's who would volunteer to do this ?
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 17, 2017, 12:45:43 PM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

Have you interviewed any Navy personnel lately and asked them if the earth is flat or a globe ?

Would you explain what changes you would make to the Navy Manual, in particular for the method for estimating the distance to the horizon ? Are you saying that you are smarter than the people in the Navy ?

Your photo might show "what could be" ....  if the earth was flat. Problem is.....the earth isn't flat..
I challenge you to prove that your photo is not just a cropped photo of an ice berg or an ice shelf.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: NAZA on November 17, 2017, 02:15:37 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.
.     

Yeah it has nothing to do with seeing farther than those on deck.

(http://s21.postimg.org/rdv5mblaf/12715916_591529730994019_3353868813282703678_o.jpg)

Moron
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: gotham on November 17, 2017, 02:27:56 PM
Quite a rough sea w/disturbed vision quality.  I do hope they have life jackets available.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: gotham on November 17, 2017, 02:34:27 PM
I've yet to interview Navy personnel regarding Earth shape but have met with commercial fishermen and tall ship captains who swear by a flat Earth due to their own experiences.

That last phrase is important when considering this "Manual for Lookouts." That manual could use some updating just like we recognize our Wiki may require updating.  Our motivation is our own experiences and your manual could benefit from our experiences, as well, and go through some necessary FET/Zetetic updating.

My posted ice wall photo represents "what could be" as explanation for how oceans remain viable on the Earth.  I have seen no rational argument that explains how they could remain deep and resident on a globe shaped Earth.

I recall that scene in "Titanic" and do appreciate it's inclusion as an abstraction as great as your claim. 
 

Have you interviewed any Navy personnel lately and asked them if the earth is flat or a globe ?

Would you explain what changes you would make to the Navy Manual, in particular for the method for estimating the distance to the horizon ? Are you saying that you are smarter than the people in the Navy ?

Your photo might show "what could be" ....  if the earth was flat. Problem is.....the earth isn't flat..
I challenge you to prove that your photo is not just a cropped photo of an ice berg or an ice shelf.

I haven't interviewed Navy personnel yet but thanks for the contact assistance! Comparing notes on Earth shape can only help lead to resolution of "what shape It is" and no one is smarter than anyone else when it comes to these things. We all just want truth and proper answers.   
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on November 17, 2017, 03:07:07 PM
no one is smarter than anyone else when it comes to these things.
Well that is demonstrably false on several levels...
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 17, 2017, 06:31:17 PM
no one is smarter than anyone else when it comes to these things.
Well that is demonstrably false on several levels...

At least in the United States Navy, there are many specialty ratings.
Each of those men in those ratings have to be smarter in their specialty than those in another rating.
That is why I suggested that you talk to a QM or BM or any other rating connected with "oceanic navigation."
They have to be proficient of the knowledge  in their rating  and that certainly depends on their knowing that the earth is a globe.
Unless you have been in the Navy, they would be smarter than you, gotham, when it comes to "oceanic navigation."
Talk to them.
You might learn something.
Oh.....forgot.
You are a "flat earth believer".
Maybe you wouldn't.......???
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 17, 2017, 06:36:48 PM
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.  The height of the nest improves the ultimate safety of the crew and vessel.
.     

Yeah it has nothing to do with seeing farther than those on deck.

(http://s21.postimg.org/rdv5mblaf/12715916_591529730994019_3353868813282703678_o.jpg)

Moron

How can you see the persons on the deck of that ship ?

If the earth is flat that ship is sinking.
If that ship wasn't sinking you could see the whole ship down to the waterline  - hull to mast.
If the earth is flat , you can't see the men on deck.
That ship is sinking and those men on the deck have drowned.
Unless you ascribe to Rowbotham's " Laws Of Perspectives".
The bottoms of things get smaller and disappear before the tops of things.

If the earth is round that ship is just beyond the horizon.
The men (friend or foe) are safe on deck.
You can't see them because they are hidden due to the curvature of the earth.
The hulls of ships disappear first and the last you see is the tops of their masts as they disappear over the horizon as is shown in the photograph.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: rabinoz on November 17, 2017, 08:13:03 PM
How can you see the persons on the deck of that ship ?
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) Maybe you just need a bigger telescope? (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 17, 2017, 09:12:37 PM
How can you see the persons on the deck of that ship ?
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) Maybe you just need a bigger telescope? (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
How can you see the persons on the deck of that ship ?
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) Maybe you just need a bigger telescope? (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)

That's right !!!
There isn't any information on what lens was used for that photograph.
But on a 35 millimeter old film camera a 55 mm lens was about "normal" , or what the naked eye sees.
Now flat earth says that if you see a ship like that with the naked eye, you can bring the whole ship back into view if you look at it with a telescope.
So if that photograph was taken with a "normal" 55 mm lens, if you changed to a telephoto lens - say a 500 mm or 600 mm lens - you should have been able to get a picture of the whole ship - from the bottom of the hull at water line to the tops of the masts.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 17, 2017, 09:19:13 PM
Quite a rough sea w/disturbed vision quality.  I do hope they have life jackets available.

Doesn't look rough to me.
The sea looks bright because it looks as if it was dark beyond the horizon and the exposure was made to show the ship beyond the horizon.
I see no large waves to indicate a rough sea.
Looks relatively calm to me.
Maybe a little choppy at most.
Looks just like a picture taken with bright sunlight on the water.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: JackBlack on November 17, 2017, 09:25:08 PM
Quite a rough sea w/disturbed vision quality.
None of that statement matches the photo.
There is no indication of rough seas or poor vision quality.

We all just want truth and proper answers.
Bullshit. If that was true you wouldn't be here spouting such crap and pretending Earth is flat.
Title: Re: Distance To The Horizon Computations : Round Earth-vs-Flat Earth
Post by: robintex on November 17, 2017, 09:43:15 PM
Quite a rough sea w/disturbed vision quality.
None of that statement matches the photo.
There is no indication of rough seas or poor vision quality.

We all just want truth and proper answers.
Bullshit. If that was true you wouldn't be here spouting such crap and pretending Earth is flat.

If you really just wanted truth you would take my suggestion and talk to some "real sailors" in the Navy.....But they would give you proper answers and  I assure you they wouldn't be "flat earth" answers.

We all know the earth isn't flat, but if you want to pretend that you believe the earth is flat , which we think that all of you flat earthers do, we round earthers will just go along with your act and enjoy our fun . Cheers ! And thanks for the entertainment !