« previous next »
Pages: [1]   Go Down

ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment

  • 27 Replies
  • 8695 Views
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« on: April 18, 2012, 09:47:16 AM »
If you read ENaG and try to reproduce Experiment 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm), it is simply impossible.

I am not arguing wether Robotham's experiment is valid or not: an experiment has to be reproducible if you want to build a theory on it.

What do you think?
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2012, 10:20:37 AM »
Why is it impossible?
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM »
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2012, 12:13:41 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.

Who, exactly, was unable to reproduce it?
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2012, 12:13:58 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.

Rowbotham's water convexity experiments have been reproduced.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2012, 12:18:14 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.

Rowbotham's water convexity experiments have been reproduced.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

Millions of people in this very century would disagree with your obsolete experiments.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2012, 12:30:28 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.

Rowbotham's water convexity experiments have been reproduced.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

Millions of people in this very century would disagree with your obsolete experiments.

Millions of people have not performed the experiment. Please stop lying.
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2012, 12:32:59 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.

Rowbotham's water convexity experiments have been reproduced.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

Millions of people in this very century would disagree with your obsolete experiments.

Millions of people have not performed the experiment. Please stop lying.

Correction.

Hunded of millions of people have seen the hull disappearing before the mast, contrary to Robotham.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6758
  • +0/-0
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2012, 12:36:33 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:32:59 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:30:28 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:18:14 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:05:23 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 11:29:36 AM
"The flag and the boat were distinctly visible throughout the whole distance! " says Robotham.

This is never the case: the hull always disappears before the mast.

Clearly it didn't. This is a proof that the earth is not a globe.

You don't get it: Robotham did this experiment, got one result.

Many people have conducted similar experiments (such as millions of people who live near the seaside) and got a different result.

So if Robotham's experiment cannot be reproduced, it is, at minimum, meaningless, therefore you cannot conclude that the Earth is flat.

Rowbotham's water convexity experiments have been reproduced.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Experimental_Evidence

Millions of people in this very century would disagree with your obsolete experiments.

Millions of people have not performed the experiment. Please stop lying.

Correction.

Hunded of millions of people have seen the hull disappearing before the mast, contrary to Robotham.

Have any of them performed a carefully controlled experiment to determine whether or not this is simply a perspective trick?
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #11 on: April 18, 2012, 12:41:02 PM »
Explain: perspective trick, please.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #12 on: April 18, 2012, 12:46:14 PM »
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #13 on: April 18, 2012, 12:50:43 PM »
The hull disappears after a couple of miles, which is way before the limit of perception of the eye or the vanishing point.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #14 on: April 18, 2012, 12:55:16 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:50:43 PM
The hull disappears after a couple of miles, which is way before the limit of perception of the eye or the vanishing point.

Source please.

Please tell us how you know where the hull disappears. It's clearly dependent on the altitude of the observer in both the traditional explanation and the perspective explanations.

Please tell us how you know what the limits of the eye or vanishing point are.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 12:57:55 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #15 on: April 18, 2012, 01:00:58 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:50:43 PM
The hull disappears after a couple of miles, which is way before the limit of perception of the eye or the vanishing point.

Source please.

Please tell us how you know where the hull disappears. It's clearly dependent on the altitude of the observer in both the traditional explanation and the perspective explanations.

Please tell us how you know what the limits of the eye or vanishing point are.

The hull is clearly behind the horizon.

I don't know what the limits of the eye or vanishing point are but I do know that you can see a mast of a ship without seeing it's hull and see a coasline behind it (so way before the limit of eyesight).
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #16 on: April 18, 2012, 02:39:47 PM »
Rowbotham's experiment #1 is flawed beyond redemption. RET does not even suggest that all bodies of water are convex. Without such a body of water and he makes no statement to lead us to believe that he even understood this, he fails, again.

Oh, and Tom's reference to the Wiki's experimental evidence and his lie about seeing people across Monterey Bay is quite damning.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #17 on: April 18, 2012, 03:20:10 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 01:00:58 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 12:55:16 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 12:50:43 PM
The hull disappears after a couple of miles, which is way before the limit of perception of the eye or the vanishing point.

Source please.

Please tell us how you know where the hull disappears. It's clearly dependent on the altitude of the observer in both the traditional explanation and the perspective explanations.

Please tell us how you know what the limits of the eye or vanishing point are.

The hull is clearly behind the horizon.

I don't know what the limits of the eye or vanishing point are but I do know that you can see a mast of a ship without seeing it's hull and see a coasline behind it (so way before the limit of eyesight).

1. You did not answer my question. How do you know that the hull disappears two miles out? Even on a Round Earth the disappearance of bodies would be directly related to the altitude of the observer.

2. Your understanding of the perspective explanation is incorrect.

Legible text on a college ruled piece of binder paper is lost to perspective after a distance, but that does not mean that the moon is invisible. The discussion is not on the limit of eyesight, but the limit of discernment. After a distance the text on a piece of paper will be blended into the white paper around it. Likewise, after a long distance the hull of a ship will be indescribable from the surface of the sea, and the two will seem to merge in the distance.

Please read the page on Sinking Ships once more.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 03:39:50 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2012, 03:25:42 PM »
1. I  know the hull disappears because i don't SEE it anymore (very zetetic, uh?) and I can still see the mast, like hundred of millions of people near the seaside.

2. With good eyes, a couple of miles isn't very much.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2012, 03:26:34 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Rowbotham's experiment #1 is flawed beyond redemption. RET does not even suggest that all bodies of water are convex.

Yes it does. If the earth is round, and if 'gravity' is pulling things downwards around it, then large bodies of standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #20 on: April 18, 2012, 03:28:09 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Rowbotham's experiment #1 is flawed beyond redemption. RET does not even suggest that all bodies of water are convex.

Yes it does. If the earth is round, and if 'gravity' is pulling things downwards around it, then large bodies of standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

The do. It's tough for you that you cannot detect it!
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #21 on: April 18, 2012, 03:34:45 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 03:25:42 PM
1. I  know the hull disappears because i don't SEE it anymore (very zetetic, uh?) and I can still see the mast, like hundred of millions of people near the seaside.

2. With good eyes, a couple of miles isn't very much.


1. How do you know that a ship you see in the distance is 2 miles out? Again, in RET the distance of the sinking ship is dependent on the altitude of the observer. There is no two mile rule.

2. You can't see much detail of anything at 2+ miles.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Rowbotham's experiment #1 is flawed beyond redemption. RET does not even suggest that all bodies of water are convex.

Yes it does. If the earth is round, and if 'gravity' is pulling things downwards around it, then large bodies of standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

The do. It's tough for you that you cannot detect it!

It cannot be detected because the earth is flat.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 03:41:20 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #22 on: April 18, 2012, 03:42:20 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:34:45 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 03:25:42 PM
1. I  know the hull disappears because i don't SEE it anymore (very zetetic, uh?) and I can still see the mast, like hundred of millions of people near the seaside.

2. With good eyes, a couple of miles isn't very much.


1. How do you know that a ship you see in the distance is 2 miles out? Again, in RET the distance of the sinking ship is dependent on the altitude of the observer. There is no two mile rule.

2. You can't see much detail of anything at two miles.

Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 03:28:09 PM
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Rowbotham's experiment #1 is flawed beyond redemption. RET does not even suggest that all bodies of water are convex.

Yes it does. If the earth is round, and if 'gravity' is pulling things downwards around it, then large bodies of standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.

The do. It's tough for you that you cannot detect it!

It cannot be detected because the earth is flat.

1. I've been recently at the seaside and there was an island about 15 miles away. I observed ships passing between the islands.
2. I agree, I can't see much details at 2 miles, but my vision is good enough to see a ship with or without a hull.
3. With your eyes, at sea level, I doubt that you can see the curvature of the Earth.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #23 on: April 18, 2012, 04:27:17 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:34:45 PM
2. You can't see much detail of anything at 2+ miles.
So please explain how you saw people across 30+ miles of Monterey Bay, and here you're challenging seeing a ship's hull at 2+ miles.
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 13, 2007, 06:31:16 PM
Quote
Your observatons are?

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good set of binoculars, knelt down on the Lovers Point beach 10 inches above the sea level of the earth it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. Since the supposed curvature of the Round Earth inclines at 8 inches per mile, this should not be possible. There should be a bulge of water twenty feet tall blocking my view.
It sure looks to me like you're a hypocrite, yet again.



Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #24 on: April 18, 2012, 04:32:40 PM »
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 03:42:20 PM
1. I've been recently at the seaside and there was an island about 15 miles away. I observed ships passing between the islands.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't tell me how you know that ships universally sink at 2 miles away from the observer.

Quote
2. I agree, I can't see much details at 2 miles, but my vision is good enough to see a ship with or without a hull.

Again, assuming that ships sink at two miles.

Quote
3. With your eyes, at sea level, I doubt that you can see the curvature of the Earth.

The curvature of the earth cannot be seen because the earth is flat.
Logged
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #25 on: April 18, 2012, 06:35:50 PM »
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 04:27:17 PM
So please explain how you saw people across 30+ miles of Monterey Bay, and here you're challenging seeing a ship's hull at 2+ miles.

Please actually read what your replying to. The poster was arguing that ships hulls started disappearing to the naked eye at 2 miles. I did not claim that ships started disappearing at 2 miles. That is the poster's claim.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 06:38:15 PM by Tom Bishop »
Logged
*

ClockTower

  • 6455
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #26 on: April 18, 2012, 07:21:48 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 06:35:50 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 04:27:17 PM
So please explain how you saw people across 30+ miles of Monterey Bay, and here you're challenging seeing a ship's hull at 2+ miles.

Please actually read what your replying to. The poster was arguing that ships hulls started disappearing to the naked eye at 2 miles. I did not claim that ships started disappearing at 2 miles. That is the poster's claim.
Please actually read what you replied. You said, as I quoted before:
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:34:45 PM
2. You can't see much detail of anything at 2+ miles.

So you've claimed that 2+ miles affects seeing details regarding a ship's hull here, but bragged that with binoculars you can discern people across 33 miles before. You're a hypocrite.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 03:26:34 PM
Quote from: ClockTower on April 18, 2012, 02:39:47 PM
Rowbotham's experiment #1 is flawed beyond redemption. RET does not even suggest that all bodies of water are convex.

Yes it does. If the earth is round, and if 'gravity' is pulling things downwards around it, then large bodies of standing water must exhibit some degree of curvature.
Where in the records of Rowbotham's Experiment #1 did he determine or even report that the body of water was standing?

As I said he failed to perform the experiment properly. Even his conclusion that the body of water was horizontal is wrong. He could only certain its relative flatness but went on to make an unfounded claim. He's quite a failure.

Quote from: Parallax in EnaG
From which it is concluded that the surface of standing water is not convex, but horizontal.
Logged
Quote from: Tausami on March 13, 2012, 12:21:24 PM
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
?

EmperorZhark

  • 2229
  • +0/-0
Re: ENaG Experiment 1: an unreproduicible experiment
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2012, 12:01:55 AM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on April 18, 2012, 04:32:40 PM
Quote from: EmperorZhark on April 18, 2012, 03:42:20 PM
1. I've been recently at the seaside and there was an island about 15 miles away. I observed ships passing between the islands.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't tell me how you know that ships universally sink at 2 miles away from the observer.

Quote
2. I agree, I can't see much details at 2 miles, but my vision is good enough to see a ship with or without a hull.

Again, assuming that ships sink at two miles.

Quote
3. With your eyes, at sea level, I doubt that you can see the curvature of the Earth.

The curvature of the earth cannot be seen because the earth is flat.

1. I know it becase I've observed it, like many people. I'm not sure of the 2 miles distance, but I know the hull disappears ALWAYS before the mast.
2. I don't "assume", it's just observed that the bottom part of a ship disappears before its top.
3. Saying it all over again wwithout disprouving my argument or addinng new elements is rather pointless.
Logged
“The Earth looks flat, therefore it is” FEers wisdom.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »