Lake Okeechobee Florida

I just couldn't resist posting here.  I guess you folks would refer to me as a round-earther or something like that.

Have any of you ever gone to Lake Okeechobee in Florida?  I have.  In some places around the lake, there are observation towers. 

When standing at the edge of the lake on a clear day, you cannot see the other side.  This is due to the curvature of the earth, and not simply because the other side is too far away for the human eye to see.  When you climb the observation tower, you can easily see the other side. 

What more proof do you need about the curvature of the earth?

I just couldn't resist posting here.  I guess you folks would refer to me as a round-earther or something like that.

Have any of you ever gone to Lake Okeechobee in Florida?  I have.  In some places around the lake, there are observation towers. 

When standing at the edge of the lake on a clear day, you cannot see the other side.  This is due to the curvature of the earth, and not simply because the other side is too far away for the human eye to see.  When you climb the observation tower, you can easily see the other side. 

What more proof do you need about the curvature of the earth?

This is the truth. Join the revolution, RE'er.

Using the surface of water as a means to determine the nature of the earths surface has been inconclusive due to the chaos associated with light interacting with the atmosphere near the near the waters surface.

i have been to the great "sand wall" in America and can tell you, its further proof the earth is planar.

I just couldn't resist posting here.  I guess you folks would refer to me as a round-earther or something like that.

Have any of you ever gone to Lake Okeechobee in Florida?  I have.  In some places around the lake, there are observation towers. 

When standing at the edge of the lake on a clear day, you cannot see the other side.  This is due to the curvature of the earth, and not simply because the other side is too far away for the human eye to see.  When you climb the observation tower, you can easily see the other side. 

What more proof do you need about the curvature of the earth?

So? You cannot see the other side of Lake Michigan either when standing on Top of John Hancock building in Chicago, all it proves is that the lake is too large.

So? You cannot see the other side of Lake Michigan either when standing on Top of John Hancock building in Chicago, all it proves is that the lake is too large.

You obviously didn't read my entire post.  I wrote, "...and not simply because the other side is too far away for the human eye to see.  When you climb the observation tower, you can easily see the other side."

If, as you say, I could not see the other side simply because the lake is too large then I would not have been able to see the other side from the observation tower either.

Using the surface of water as a means to determine the nature of the earths surface has been inconclusive due to the chaos associated with light interacting with the atmosphere near the near the waters surface.

This is the kind of crazy reply I was expecting to receive.  The "chaos" you are talking about (hysterical choice of words, by the way) is refraction and reflection, and this would not affect my ability to see the opposite shore of the lake, if the lake was flat and not curved.

Oh well... you folks go on believing whatever conspiracy theories you want... just please don't go nuts and start killing people.

Quote from: Kendrick on October 01, 2012, 02:30:54 PM

Using the surface of water as a means to determine the nature of the earths surface has been inconclusive due to the chaos associated with light interacting with the atmosphere near the near the waters surface.

This is the kind of crazy reply I was expecting to receive.  The "chaos" you are talking about (hysterical choice of words, by the way) is refraction and reflection, and this would not affect my ability to see across the lake when standing on the shore.

Depending on atmospheric conditions, it could.  When conditions are just right, it's not unheard of for people to see far away city lights across large lakes that would otherwise not be visible.
http://blogs.woodtv.com/2012/05/10/very-rare-mirage-at-grand-haven/
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm

When I look from my sidewalk I can't see the end of the city. When I climb up to the roof I can. This clearly shows the Earth must be flat.

Depending on atmospheric conditions, it could.  When conditions are just right, it's not unheard of for people to see far away city lights across large lakes that would otherwise not be visible.
http://blogs.woodtv.com/2012/05/10/very-rare-mirage-at-grand-haven/
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/supmrge.htm

Yes, a temperature inversion can cause a reflection.  Imagine it being like a huge mirror in the sky, allowing you to see around the curvature of the earth.  However, it would NOT prevent you from seeing something that is in a straight line from where you are standing on the ground.  Differing air densities can distort what you see in a direct line of sight from ground level, but will not prevent you from seeing it entirely.

If you have ever gone SCUBA diving and encountered a temperature inversion under water, you would understand what I mean.

But, like I said... you folks go on believing whatever you like.  As long as you don't harm others, I don't care.

Quote from: Kendrick on October 01, 2012, 02:30:54 PM

Using the surface of water as a means to determine the nature of the earths surface has been inconclusive due to the chaos associated with light interacting with the atmosphere near the near the waters surface.

This is the kind of crazy reply I was expecting to receive.  The "chaos" you are talking about (hysterical choice of words, by the way) is refraction and reflection, and this would not affect my ability to see the opposite shore of the lake, if the lake was flat and not curved.

Oh well... you folks go on believing whatever conspiracy theories you want... just please don't go nuts and start killing people.

I thought my response was reasoned, cogent and accurate.  I resent the implication of neurosis. 

It is precisely due to reflection and refraction that using the waters surface to make assertions regarding the shape of the earth is inconclusive.

With such charm you must be a big hit at parties.

I just couldn't resist posting here.  I guess you folks would refer to me as a round-earther or something like that.

Have any of you ever gone to Lake Okeechobee in Florida?  I have.  In some places around the lake, there are observation towers. 

When standing at the edge of the lake on a clear day, you cannot see the other side.  This is due to the curvature of the earth, and not simply because the other side is too far away for the human eye to see.  When you climb the observation tower, you can easily see the other side. 

What more proof do you need about the curvature of the earth?

You must provide the following information:

distance from those observation towers all the way to the other side of the lake

width of the lake Okeechobee

height of the observation towers

ps you might see the data on lake Ontario, 55 km with no curvature whatsoever:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394008.html#msg1394008

ps you might see the data on lake Ontario, 55 km with no curvature whatsoever:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,55885.msg1394008.html#msg1394008

Does it show no curvature 100% of the time?

"Imagine it being like a huge mirror in the sky, allowing you to see around the curvature of the earth.  However, it would NOT prevent you from seeing something that is in a straight line from where you are standing on the ground."

I love the way RE'ers turn the truth surrounding the phenomenon of bending light happily upon her head. True, IF the earth were round, the downward bending of light rays would allow one to see further down the surface of the earth than they otherwise would be able without the phenomenon of bending rays. IN FACT, the earth is flat and the downward bending of light rays is what gives us the phenomenon of the horizon, beyond which one can't observe the ground.

The reason you could not see the other side of the lake from the ground was because those light rays bent down into the earth before they reached you. When you stood on the tower, you were able to see the other side of the lake because, although the light rays from the other side of the lake were still bending down, you were at a high enough elevation so as to still observe them, as the particularly rays you observed were not directed parallel across the ground but directed at an upward angle.   

"Imagine it being like a huge mirror in the sky, allowing you to see around the curvature of the earth.  However, it would NOT prevent you from seeing something that is in a straight line from where you are standing on the ground."

Dino, please learn how to use the quote function and/or properly cite the quotations that you provide.  It makes it a lot easier to figure out what you're talking about.

IN FACT, the earth is flat and the downward bending of light rays is what gives us the phenomenon of the horizon, beyond which one can't observe the ground.

So...why do any type of long range ballistics have to take the curvature of the earth's surface into account if the horizon is simply an "illusion of bending light" (not to mention accounting for the earth's rotation, the "Coriolis effect")?

Why do radio towers have to take the earth's curvature into account? 

Why do sound waves get influenced by this illusion of bending light?

The easy answer is: the earth is round and rotates.

The complex answer is: the same forces that bend light to give the illusion of a horizon bust also bend light differently when not looking at the horizon and must act on and influence all forms of movement and all forms of transmission in the exact same manner and degree as the "bent" light somehow.

Of course, this complex answer would still not explain the Coriolis effect.

Of course, this complex answer would still not explain the Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is explained by relativity. Each surface location on Earth “appears” to revolve around the Earth's center of gravity, because each location is moving straight ahead in Time but at different speeds through Time than objects above or below it, since they are further from (or closer to) the center of gravity of the Earth. Because everything is traveling at various speeds through Time, objects moving slower through Time “appear” to orbit objects which move faster through Time. (See Einstein).

The cumulative result of relativity is that locations on the surface of the Earth, relative to other objects such as celestial objects, appear to swirl around the center of the Earth from “east” to “west”. The celestial objects themselves, traveling at different speeds through Time than surface locations on Earth, also appear to swirl from “east” to “west” but at an even greater rate than do the surface locations “north” of the equator on Earth. Therefore an observer standing on the surface of the Earth in the “north” will observe the celestial objects appearing to swirl from “east” to “west”.

Because the surface of the Earth is a disc, locations on the outer portion of this disc (again, due to relativity) “appear” to rotate at a faster rate around the center of the Earth than surface locations  nearer the center of the disc (much like outer surface locations on a top spin with greater angular momentum than surface locations nearer the center of the top). At the great circle known as the equator, the apparent spinning of the surface of the Earth and of the celestial objects are equal, therefore an observer looking up to the heavens from the equator would observe no apparent spinning. “South” of the equator, because the surface locations on Earth here appear to spin faster than the celestial objects, the celestial objects appear to move “backward” from “west” to “east”, since those locations on Earth have overtaken the stars in speed in relative apparent spinning.   

Sure but that model wouldn't explain how verticle height impacts such things.

Ignoring even that, then based on this philosophy one and one only possible map of "flat earth" would exist based on this principal instead of the multiple "flat earth" maps that different FE'rs seem to debate back and forth on.

Moreover, if different segments were moving at different speeds through time enough to cause this effect it would directly impact your lifespan and cause measurable discrepancies in time between different zones which would have to be constantly accounted for by the central NIST clock when being distributed elsewhere through the world.

Networking in general would fall apart as time drift destroyed sequencing actions eventually leading to timeout errors etc. etc. etc.

Thus the argument does not hold water based on actual test data.

Sure but that model wouldn't explain how verticle height impacts such things.

Ignoring even that, then based on this philosophy one and one only possible map of "flat earth" would exist based on this principal instead of the multiple "flat earth" maps that different FE'rs seem to debate back and forth on.

Moreover, if different segments were moving at different speeds through time enough to cause this effect it would directly impact your lifespan and cause measurable discrepancies in time between different zones which would have to be constantly accounted for by the central NIST clock when being distributed elsewhere through the world.

Networking in general would fall apart as time drift destroyed sequencing actions eventually leading to timeout errors etc. etc. etc.

Thus the argument does not hold water based on actual test data.

What actual test data?

"Networking in general would fall apart..." That's a sweeping statement.  Networks are designed not merely based on Round Earth theories, but by trial and error, debugging, experimentation, etc. Surely plenty of bugs DO exist in systems due to relativity problems.  A greater effort to integrate relativity effects into networks would surely lead to superior networks with fewer bugs. 

You seem to paint a picture of a modern world where everything works fine and dandy and according to plan, when in fact infrastructures are crumbling due to shoddy Round Earther engineering; mysterious bugs in electronic networks cause the electronic stock market to drop hundred of points for a few seconds at a time, helicopters keep dropping out of the sky, bridges collapse, drilling operations fail and spill mammoth quantities of oil, buildings collapse and crumble to the ground, networks fail constantly and with no explanation,  blackouts, brownouts, and yellow-outs are common, everything needs to be constantly maintained and rejiggered, everything breaks, nothing works quite right quite as expected quite as advertised but that's OK because everything's going to be fixed and tweaked in  and rejiggered in the next version, in the next generation of the product, which once again won't work quite right as expected or as advertised but that's OK everything will be fixed and tweaked and rejiggered in the next version...etc.,etc. till a figure 8 gives up completely and lies down on its side.

But maybe you're right. Maybe everything is working just fine thanks to Round Earther theory and there are no bugs in anything.     

Your argument amounts to "because people make mistakes RE modeling must be wrong".  By this analogy, considering that by far vastly more things proceed without mistake RE must absolutely be correct.

Regardless, you didn't answer how to account for the fact that there is not specific time drift descrepancies between different locations on earth which your statements would absolutely require to have occuring. 

All networking protocols count on the fact that time does not proceed in a notably different fashion at different locations relative to each other.

Refusing to acknowledge this is not a counter argument, deflecting is not a counter argument.  That is called burying your head in the sand. 

First post here, just curious about this topic in regards to distance, height, and water. Why is it that without water in the equation, the observations are similar?  IE, when standing at 5,800 feet in the cascades, mountains that are much taller appear shorter in the distance. As in, much smaller mountains make mount rainier and mount baker appear to be shorter in height.  At such short distances, and on a flat plane, these mountains should still tower over the smaller mountains.  From my observations, this does show a curvature of the earth, without water refracting or reflecting light in any weird sort of way.

First post here, just curious about this topic in regards to distance, height, and water. Why is it that without water in the equation, the observations are similar?  IE, when standing at 5,800 feet in the cascades, mountains that are much taller appear shorter in the distance. As in, much smaller mountains make mount rainier and mount baker appear to be shorter in height.  At such short distances, and on a flat plane, these mountains should still tower over the smaller mountains.  From my observations, this does show a curvature of the earth, without water refracting or reflecting light in any weird sort of way.

Mountain Boy the FE'rs have never had proof to support anything and when the RE'rs have evidence pictures, proof,etc... its denied by the FE'rs who think everything is conspiracy for no reason.

They all like to follow the one guy Irushwithscrvs who never has any back up info on the flat earth because the earth is round... so he makes up stuff to support his evidence and when he can no longer support his evidence he likes to pick at your grammar and other things. Knowing very well he's already wrong. I'm also pretty positive he thinks the earth is round now too and is just trolling.

Quote from: Solmyre on October 06, 2012, 11:55:19 PM

Of course, this complex answer would still not explain the Coriolis effect.

The Coriolis effect is explained by relativity. Each surface location on Earth “appears” to revolve around the Earth's center of gravity, because each location is moving straight ahead in Time but at different speeds through Time than objects above or below it, since they are further from (or closer to) the center of gravity of the Earth. Because everything is traveling at various speeds through Time, objects moving slower through Time “appear” to orbit objects which move faster through Time. (See Einstein).

The cumulative result of relativity is that locations on the surface of the Earth, relative to other objects such as celestial objects, appear to swirl around the center of the Earth from “east” to “west”. The celestial objects themselves, traveling at different speeds through Time than surface locations on Earth, also appear to swirl from “east” to “west” but at an even greater rate than do the surface locations “north” of the equator on Earth. Therefore an observer standing on the surface of the Earth in the “north” will observe the celestial objects appearing to swirl from “east” to “west”.

Because the surface of the Earth is a disc, locations on the outer portion of this disc (again, due to relativity) “appear” to rotate at a faster rate around the center of the Earth than surface locations  nearer the center of the disc (much like outer surface locations on a top spin with greater angular momentum than surface locations nearer the center of the top). At the great circle known as the equator, the apparent spinning of the surface of the Earth and of the celestial objects are equal, therefore an observer looking up to the heavens from the equator would observe no apparent spinning. “South” of the equator, because the surface locations on Earth here appear to spin faster than the celestial objects, the celestial objects appear to move “backward” from “west” to “east”, since those locations on Earth have overtaken the stars in speed in relative apparent spinning.

I finally see what you're talking about. You're totally messing up time dilation. Einstein's theories revolve around gravity, the same gravity which, by it's own mechanics, would pull anything in towards the center of mass, creating a spheroid. Time dilation does not explain flatness or illusions of motions that aren't really happening. It makes things look like they are happening at a slightly different time, depending on the speed and gravity of the object.

First post here, just curious about this topic in regards to distance, height, and water. Why is it that without water in the equation, the observations are similar?  IE, when standing at 5,800 feet in the cascades, mountains that are much taller appear shorter in the distance. As in, much smaller mountains make mount rainier and mount baker appear to be shorter in height.  At such short distances, and on a flat plane, these mountains should still tower over the smaller mountains.  From my observations, this does show a curvature of the earth, without water refracting or reflecting light in any weird sort of way.

Objects will appear smaller with distance whether it is on a RE or a FE.  The distances don't change in either theory, so by your logic above on a RE Mount Rainier should still tower over the smaller mountains, except pointed away from the center of the Earth-ball because of its distance.  Is this what you observe?  No, it appears smaller overall and does not "point" in some other direction due to Earth's curvature, no matter from which direction or at what distance you observe it (or any other mountain or landmark) from.  The effect seen is therefore not foreshortening due to curvature but overall shrinking due to distance across a flat plane and thus having a smaller resolution in our field of view.

The mountain (or the other side of Lake Okeechobee in the OP's example) will "disappear" from view either because of distance, when its resolution becomes too small, or when it reaches the visual horizon caused by the shape of the eye and its effect of making the ground appear to visibly rise up to eye level.  The average distance to the horizon from six feet off the ground is about 5 kilometres (3.1 mi), while Lake Okeechobee is 25 by 29 miles across.  If standing on a tower 100 feet high you could see farther away, about 12 miles, meaning either the tower mentioned is much higher then 100 feet or the OP observed the shore across one of the smaller bays to the north or south of the lake.

It seems that in general, as mentioned on Answers.com:
Can you see across lake Okeechobee?  Answer:  No 

Quote from: MountainBoy on October 12, 2012, 03:48:44 AM

First post here, just curious about this topic in regards to distance, height, and water. Why is it that without water in the equation, the observations are similar?  IE, when standing at 5,800 feet in the cascades, mountains that are much taller appear shorter in the distance. As in, much smaller mountains make mount rainier and mount baker appear to be shorter in height.  At such short distances, and on a flat plane, these mountains should still tower over the smaller mountains.  From my observations, this does show a curvature of the earth, without water refracting or reflecting light in any weird sort of way.

Objects will appear smaller with distance whether it is on a RE or a FE.  The distances don't change in either theory, so by your logic above on a RE Mount Rainier should still tower over the smaller mountains, except pointed away from the center of the Earth-ball because of its distance.  Is this what you observe?  No, it appears smaller overall and does not "point" in some other direction due to Earth's curvature, no matter from which direction or at what distance you observe it (or any other mountain or landmark) from.  The effect seen is therefore not foreshortening due to curvature but overall shrinking due to distance across a flat plane and thus having a smaller resolution in our field of view.

That is in fact, exactly what is observed.  The objects angled slightly away appear to shrink.  That is one of the major problems with the notion that your eye is creating a horizon.  Resolution is of course bunk because you can use a telescope to overcome that easily.

No, objects in the distance instead appear to compress precisely because they are tilting away.

If instead your eye was building a horizon and/or light was curving into the ground (as some other FErs seem to suggest) the opposite would happen, you'd get a horizon all right, but you'd also get verticle stretching as a result of it occuring in that manner due to your view distorting incoming light.  Instead, distance objects are percieved as compressed due to leaning away from you, with or without telescope/binoculars etc. 

Ballistics, trajectories in general, physical objects, road distances, flight distances, math, all agree with the explanation of a spherical planet. 

Perhaps you have an explanation for this as well Piper?

No, objects in the distance instead appear to compress precisely because they are tilting away.

And do you have any actual evidence of this?  Mountains and tall landmarks always appear at the exact same angle and shape from whichever direction you view them from, there is no "tilting away".  Please provide evidence for this effect, without forgetting that the farther away an object is, the more pronounced the "tilt" angle should be (think Leaning Tower of Pisa).  Note also that if an object were tilting away its base should appear larger than its summit and the object would thus not appear uniformly compressed, which is what is plainly seen in reality.

Is the "tilting away theory" also your explanation for a ship "sinking" at the horizon?  Is the ship also tilting away?

Ballistics, trajectories in general, physical objects, road distances, flight distances, math, all agree with the explanation of a spherical planet. 

Perhaps you have an explanation for this as well Piper?

Calculations and measurements are merely tools and are not evidence of one theory or another.  Manufactured items, especially ones incorporating computer technology, are programmed or built based upon the current accepted paradigm (with many tweaks and ad hoc adjustments along the way) and are also not evidence of anything.  Many roads were built and many wars were fought with ballistic weapons before people were led to believe the earth was spherical, yet they still functioned perfectly well.

Rather than simply saying that a distant object should appear tilted and that you don't notice this, you should first calculate how much it's supposed to be tilting then perform measurements to determine if this tilting is or is not present.

Consider that under RET, where the circumference of the earth is 40075 km, a single degree of curvature would give you an arc span of over 111km. One degree of tilting is extremely faint and difficult to notice. And I don't think you observe very many objects that are 111km away.

To put it in rough terms, the tilting back of an object is relative to the cosine of the tilt angle, while the amount of curvature that obscures an object is relative to the sine of an angle. At small angles cosine (in radians) is very close to 1, where the difference between the value and 1 is much lower than the angle. The sine of the angle, on the other hand, is close to the value of the angle. So in RET you would expect an object to need to be very tall to be far enough away to show tilting yet overcome the curvature of the earth.

If you ever deal with tri-axial sensors that are ideally orthogonal to each other you'll see this same phenomenon - a relatively small angle error does very little to attenuate the sensitive axis but does a lot to bring in cross-axis error from the perpendicular axes.

Yes, so the reason objects in the distance appear smaller is not at all due to any kind of tilting caused by the curvature of the Earth, as is being argued by Solmyre:

That is in fact, exactly what is observed.  The objects angled slightly away appear to shrink.

"tilting" won't explain why an object 3 times as tall as another object appears shorter than a closer object. If the height differences between say mount pilchuk and mount rainier were only a couple thousand feet and knowing the distance was approx 70 miles or so, then yes I'd fully expect to not even see mt rainier in the distance even on a flat earth.

Mount rainier is 14,400 feet tall approx. at 70 some miles on a flat plane it should still appear taller than the surrounding mountains that are at an average of 5500 feet. Instead it is shorter than. True rainier appears to be smaller, but at that distance it's not going to be visibly much smaller to appear shorter than mountains that are about a third the size.