Zetetic proof that the earth is flat.

The area I was in is the top of the Chesapeake Bay an area with slow moving tides. If the buoy was moving up or down the boat was moving up or down.
 I also went back out today on the boat and was amazed at the difficulty of seeing the buoy during the day. We could not see it even with binoculars until we were about 1 mile away , and it very difficult to see even then. At night time the buoy is very clear. The point here is that you might suspect that curvature is hiding it during the day.

The problem with using a buoy is that it is subject to height change constantly.

If this were to add inaccuracies to the observation, he would have observed the light dipping underneath the horizon during a trough and rising back above the horizon during a crest.  If the light did not dip below the horizon throughout the course of his observation then even at it's lowest point, which would be lower than average sea level, it was still visable.  This would add error in favor of the expiriment and not against.

If you where sitting in a fixed land position then you can not accurately measure based on the topographical differences in view points.

On average, sea level should be the same.

The area I was in is the top of the Chesapeake Bay an area with slow moving tides. If the buoy was moving up or down the boat was moving up or down.
 I also went back out today on the boat and was amazed at the difficulty of seeing the buoy during the day. We could not see it even with binoculars until we were about 1 mile away , and it very difficult to see even then. At night time the buoy is very clear. The point here is that you might suspect that curvature is hiding it during the day.

Robby and I aren't necessarily disagreeing with your conclusion, just the calculations you used to reach it. If the Earth is round, then the horizon is what limits your line of sight at a certain distance. As such, the relevant issue is the projected distance by RET of the line between the limit of your line of sight and the object. As per Robby's diagram, this is not a vertical line, but a perpendicular line from the tangent formed by the object.


All Robby is saying is that the vertical drop-off from the observer to the object doesn't matter, because according to RET the object is supposed to be a given distance below the horizon, not a given distance below the observer. However, despite the mathematics being wrong, your results still contradict RET, as the object should still have been below the horizon if it was caused by the Earth's curvature.

All Robby is saying is that the vertical drop-off from the observer to the object doesn't matter, because according to RET the object is supposed to be a given distance below the horizon, not a given distance below the observer.

This.

Hoppy is 3' above the surface, the 'hill' of water is 4 to 5', the bouy is 5.5'. 

I don't know the water vs air temps, but even the slightest refraction might have been present (I witnessed this refraction, and what it can do, myself last week), so I'm not suprised hoppy saw the light 5 miles away.

It is amazing to me that "just the right amount of refraction" appears everytime one of these experiments is performed.

It is amazing to me that "just the right amount of refraction" appears everytime one of these experiments is performed.

It is amazing to me that people are trying to prove the shape of the earth and/or a world wide conspiracy without accounting for mirages. Refraction is important, and could potentially make a round earth appear flat, or a flat earth appear round in this kind of experiment. If you do not account for this well known problem, the other side will use it to ignore your results.

We would have to have proof this phenomenon is actually occurring before we "account" for it, shouldn't we?

It is amazing to me that "just the right amount of refraction" appears everytime one of these experiments is performed.

Well, without details of the atmospheric and water temperatures at the time, it's impossible to say exactly how much refraction may or may not have been present.  And without precise measurements regarding the height and location of the observer and the target, it's impossible to say exactly how much refraction (if any) would be required.

We would have to have proof this phenomenon is actually occurring before we "account" for it, shouldn't we?

Have fun denying a phenomenon that is easily seen by the naked eye and has been photo-documented by FEer and REer alike. That's like denying sunsets exist.

Wow, you are angry.  Also, we will have fun.  Unlike you, who will only be angry.

Quote from: Ski on May 24, 2012, 06:07:26 PM

We would have to have proof this phenomenon is actually occurring before we "account" for it, shouldn't we?

Have fun denying a phenomenon that is easily seen by the naked eye and has been photo-documented by FEer and REer alike. That's like denying sunsets exist.

I'm not denying that refraction occurs. I am against the presumption that miracle refraction is occurring everytime experimentation conflicts with globularism.

I posted a picture the other day that conflicts with globularism, along with a picture from a different elevation that demonstrates the refraction taking place, thus reaffirming it.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=54668.0

Wow, you are angry.  Also, we will have fun.  Unlike you, who will only be angry.

I have fun here.  I've learned some stuff and kind of enjoy doing photography experiments.  I wouldn't have bothered coming up with my 'poor-man's method' of photographing the sun if it hadn't been for this place.

Quote from: AnonConda on May 25, 2012, 01:39:43 AM

Quote from: Ski on May 24, 2012, 06:07:26 PM

We would have to have proof this phenomenon is actually occurring before we "account" for it, shouldn't we?

Have fun denying a phenomenon that is easily seen by the naked eye and has been photo-documented by FEer and REer alike. That's like denying sunsets exist.

I'm not denying that refraction occurs. I am against the presumption that miracle refraction is occurring everytime experimentation conflicts with globularism.

And what about when experimentation conflicts with FET? It works both ways.

This is a well documented phenomena; and if height, humidity and temperature are not specified the experimental results are compromised and lose some validity. It isn't some trivial detail that can be overlooked by either side, and it raises suspicions when only one side cares about details.