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.
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.
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://)
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?
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.
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.
I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.
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.
Good,so it's your last message on board ? in this site ?I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.
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.
Done.
Good,so it's your last message on board ? in this site ?I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.
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.
Done.
Sure.Good,so it's your last message on board ? in this site ?I suppose the moderator might as well put the lock on this one.you prove the earth is round case closed,go home.
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.
Done.
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.
I posted this in an earlier thread, I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.Just sit or lay down on the beach so your eyes (line of sight) just 10 cm above sea level (equal 0.1 meters),
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)
I posted this in an earlier thread, I think it's worth repeating that flat earthers just don't do well at maths.Just sit or lay down on the beach so your eyes (line of sight) just 10 cm above sea level (equal 0.1 meters),
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)
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.
Just sit or lay down on the beach so your eyes (line of sight) just 10 cm above sea level (equal 0.1 meters),That will depend if the there is extra refraction at the water's surface which often occurs.
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?The horizon is those 38.6 km away, unless there are taller things in the way.
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 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.Wrong on all counts!
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.
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.Really?
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.
Yes, those people the actually "So down to the sea in(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 milesFor 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)
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).
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.
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.
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.
The crow's nest is designed to look over the bow of distant ships identifying individuals aboard as friend or foe.Ha! Good one.
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.
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)
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.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
Your calculations are fine, though you should note that Rayzor's post included: "taking into account standard correction for refraction".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.You mean like this thread has been about?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.What experience makes them think the earth is flat? Measured distances? Seeing the sun rise and set?
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.
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.What experience makes them think the earth is flat? Measured distances? Seeing the sun rise and set?
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.
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.What experience makes them think the earth is flat? Measured distances? Seeing the sun rise and set?
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'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.
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.
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.
.
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.
no one is smarter than anyone else when it comes to these things.Well that is demonstrably false on several levels...
no one is smarter than anyone else when it comes to these things.Well that is demonstrably false on several levels...
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 ?(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)
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)
Quite a rough sea w/disturbed vision quality. I do hope they have life jackets available.
Quite a rough sea w/disturbed vision quality.None of that statement matches the photo.
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.
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.