Contrails

Do you have any evidence that the size of the contrail is sufficiently small to disappear before reaching the horizon? I don't see any.

I believe that this is one of those rare times when "look out your window" is actually appropriate.

Quote from: rottingroom on August 26, 2013, 09:27:23 AM

The more logical statement is "If it looks flat then it could be either a plane or a sphere!"

Or a giant bunny, perhaps a turtle, or a hedgehog. Any number of shapes are possible. Indeed a giant tortoise seems at least as likely as a globe to me.

Quote

There is no need for the preconceived notion that apparent flatness must mean one thing just because you can't understand that apparent flatness could also mean roundness. A straight horizon is exactly what you should expect on a spherical Earth.

Everyone understands that it could mean roundness. Not seeing pixies is entirely consistent with the existence of fairies too small to see. The question is why should we assume the fairies exist based on this consistency?

Because of the evidence that follows that supports a round earth.

Nevertheless, my post was an attack on Flat Earth logic. It basically goes like this:

1. It looks flat so it is a fact that it is flat.
2. There is evidence that it is round.
3. The evidence must be fake.
4. The Earth is flat.

The first statement is illogical. Because the proper logic is this:

1. The horizon is straight and the Earth is large so it could be any number of shapes.
2. There is evidence that it is round.
3. The Earth is round.
4. The FES says it is flat and there is a conspiracy.
5. The flat earth society has zero evidence of this.
6. The Earth is round.

Quote from: Ski on August 26, 2013, 09:45:38 PM

Do you have any evidence that the size of the contrail is sufficiently small to disappear before reaching the horizon? I don't see any.

No, but its not hard to work out. Minimum width to be visible at the horizon would be 6-7 miles. This could easily be checked by viewing a contrail directly overhead, measuring its apparent width, and applying a little trig. More simply, a contrail would have to be >40° apparent width when overhead to be visible at the point it reaches the horizon.

Oh, so you're still using art school perspective. That explains your difficulty.

Quote from: Scintific Method on August 26, 2013, 10:11:16 PM

Quote from: Ski on August 26, 2013, 09:45:38 PM

Do you have any evidence that the size of the contrail is sufficiently small to disappear before reaching the horizon? I don't see any.

No, but its not hard to work out. Minimum width to be visible at the horizon would be 6-7 miles. This could easily be checked by viewing a contrail directly overhead, measuring its apparent width, and applying a little trig. More simply, a contrail would have to be >40° apparent width when overhead to be visible at the point it reaches the horizon.

Oh, so you're still using art school perspective. That explains your difficulty.

Would you care to provide the math where light doesn't travel in straight lines?

Quote from: Ski on August 26, 2013, 09:38:50 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on August 26, 2013, 09:27:23 AM

The more logical statement is "If it looks flat then it could be either a plane or a sphere!"

Or a giant bunny, perhaps a turtle, or a hedgehog. Any number of shapes are possible. Indeed a giant tortoise seems at least as likely as a globe to me.

Quote

There is no need for the preconceived notion that apparent flatness must mean one thing just because you can't understand that apparent flatness could also mean roundness. A straight horizon is exactly what you should expect on a spherical Earth.

Everyone understands that it could mean roundness. Not seeing pixies is entirely consistent with the existence of fairies too small to see. The question is why should we assume the fairies exist based on this consistency?

Because of the evidence that follows that supports a round earth.

Nevertheless, my post was an attack on Flat Earth logic. It basically goes like this:

1. It looks flat so it is a fact that it is flat.
2. There is evidence that it is round.
3. The evidence must be fake.
4. The Earth is flat.

The first statement is illogical. Because the proper logic is this:

1. The horizon is straight and the Earth is large so it could be any number of shapes.
2. There is evidence that it is round.
3. The Earth is round.
4. The FES says it is flat and there is a conspiracy.
5. The flat earth society has zero evidence of this.
6. The Earth is round.

Then post your "evidence"...

Quote from: rottingroom on August 27, 2013, 07:11:41 AM

Quote from: Ski on August 26, 2013, 09:38:50 PM

Quote from: rottingroom on August 26, 2013, 09:27:23 AM

The more logical statement is "If it looks flat then it could be either a plane or a sphere!"

Or a giant bunny, perhaps a turtle, or a hedgehog. Any number of shapes are possible. Indeed a giant tortoise seems at least as likely as a globe to me.

Quote

There is no need for the preconceived notion that apparent flatness must mean one thing just because you can't understand that apparent flatness could also mean roundness. A straight horizon is exactly what you should expect on a spherical Earth.

Everyone understands that it could mean roundness. Not seeing pixies is entirely consistent with the existence of fairies too small to see. The question is why should we assume the fairies exist based on this consistency?

Because of the evidence that follows that supports a round earth.

Nevertheless, my post was an attack on Flat Earth logic. It basically goes like this:

1. It looks flat so it is a fact that it is flat.
2. There is evidence that it is round.
3. The evidence must be fake.
4. The Earth is flat.

The first statement is illogical. Because the proper logic is this:

1. The horizon is straight and the Earth is large so it could be any number of shapes.
2. There is evidence that it is round.
3. The Earth is round.
4. The FES says it is flat and there is a conspiracy.
5. The flat earth society has zero evidence of this.
6. The Earth is round.

Then post your "evidence"...

All the evidence that a FEer says is fake basically. Whether it is true or fake it is still evidence which speaks more volumes than the lack of evidence that FEers have to say otherwise. The FE has no evidence of a flat earth or a RE conspiracy.

Then post your "evidence"...

Check out the List of Hung Threads. There are too many to post here (literally--the site will think I'm a spambot), but I'll summarize:

• The sun and moon set on a regular basis, when FE models predict they should stay at least 12 degrees above the horizon at all times.
• The sun sets much farther south than any FE model predicts.
• Mountains, when measured from a distance, appear to be much shorter than they really are.
• There exist two celestial poles--impossible for any of the current FE models.
• Survey tests of long stretches of water show the horizon is lower than horizontal in perfect agreement with a sphereoidal Earth and in complete contradiction with a flat one.
• Pictures of the Earth from the Moon show it as round.
  
  • Lasers bounced off reflectors placed on the Moon indicate that humans had, at one time, equipment near enough to the Moon that could take such pictures.

There are more, but this is a good start. Use the search function to look up the threads for these topics--most have been abandoned by FE advocates.

Oh, so you're still using art school perspective.

Yes, because it works in all cases where a line of sight exists to the object in question, and no evidence exists to contradict it.

Quote from: Chevalier on August 27, 2013, 08:18:01 AM

Then post your "evidence"...

Check out the List of Hung Threads. There are too many to post here (literally--the site will think I'm a spambot), but I'll summarize:

• The sun and moon set on a regular basis, when FE models predict they should stay at least 12 degrees above the horizon at all times.
• The sun sets much farther south than any FE model predicts.
• Mountains, when measured from a distance, appear to be much shorter than they really are.
• There exist two celestial poles--impossible for any of the current FE models.
• Survey tests of long stretches of water show the horizon is lower than horizontal in perfect agreement with a sphereoidal Earth and in complete contradiction with a flat one.
• Pictures of the Earth from the Moon show it as round.
  
  • Lasers bounced off reflectors placed on the Moon indicate that humans had, at one time, equipment near enough to the Moon that could take such pictures.

There are more, but this is a good start. Use the search function to look up the threads for these topics--most have been abandoned by FE advocates.

These are interesting points.
1) FE model has yet to be refined on this subject
2) see 1)
3) it has something to do with perspective or bendy light (or something else but NOT the Earth being round)
4) wrong, the "Antartica as a continent" map support this
5) what survey? you could claim things you are making up
6) and 6-1) it's obviously fake

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 27, 2013, 08:52:13 AM

Quote from: Chevalier on August 27, 2013, 08:18:01 AM

Then post your "evidence"...

Check out the List of Hung Threads. There are too many to post here (literally--the site will think I'm a spambot), but I'll summarize:

• The sun and moon set on a regular basis, when FE models predict they should stay at least 12 degrees above the horizon at all times.
• The sun sets much farther south than any FE model predicts.
• Mountains, when measured from a distance, appear to be much shorter than they really are.
• There exist two celestial poles--impossible for any of the current FE models.
• Survey tests of long stretches of water show the horizon is lower than horizontal in perfect agreement with a sphereoidal Earth and in complete contradiction with a flat one.
• Pictures of the Earth from the Moon show it as round.
  
  • Lasers bounced off reflectors placed on the Moon indicate that humans had, at one time, equipment near enough to the Moon that could take such pictures.

There are more, but this is a good start. Use the search function to look up the threads for these topics--most have been abandoned by FE advocates.

These are interesting points.
1) FE model has yet to be refined on this subject
2) see 1)
3) it has something to do with perspective or bendy light (or something else but NOT the Earth being round)
4) wrong, the "Antartica as a continent" map support this
5) what survey? you could claim things you are making up
6) and 6-1) it's obviously fake

5)Check out professional surveyor resources online and it is simple to find discussions on how to correct for that errors arise from not accounting for the Earth's curvature.

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on August 27, 2013, 08:52:13 AM

Quote from: Chevalier on August 27, 2013, 08:18:01 AM

Then post your "evidence"...

Check out the List of Hung Threads. There are too many to post here (literally--the site will think I'm a spambot), but I'll summarize:

• The sun and moon set on a regular basis, when FE models predict they should stay at least 12 degrees above the horizon at all times.
• The sun sets much farther south than any FE model predicts.
• Mountains, when measured from a distance, appear to be much shorter than they really are.
• There exist two celestial poles--impossible for any of the current FE models.
• Survey tests of long stretches of water show the horizon is lower than horizontal in perfect agreement with a sphereoidal Earth and in complete contradiction with a flat one.
• Pictures of the Earth from the Moon show it as round.
  
  • Lasers bounced off reflectors placed on the Moon indicate that humans had, at one time, equipment near enough to the Moon that could take such pictures.

There are more, but this is a good start. Use the search function to look up the threads for these topics--most have been abandoned by FE advocates.

These are interesting points.
1) FE model has yet to be refined on this subject
2) see 1)
3) it has something to do with perspective or bendy light (or something else but NOT the Earth being round)
4) wrong, the "Antartica as a continent" map support this
5) what survey? you could claim things you are making up
6) and 6-1) it's obviously fake

Heeey, somebody responded! AND there was admission that FE is incomplete! Wow. Chevalier, you are now my favorite FE advocate ever!

My point for 4 is that there are two celestial poles--two points around which the stars appear to rotate. For the "Antarctica as a Continent" model, this would mean there are two celestial disks--one over the north pole and one over the south. This is all fine and good except for the observers right around the equator, where both poles are visible (or very nearly so). Looking at time-lapse photos of the night sky from those areas it certainly doesn't look like there are two disks meshing together, but instead one sphere spinning around the Earth.

As for the surveys, there's a whole science of Geodesy that has done stuff like that, but one particular survey I could bring up is none other than the infamous Bedford Level Experiment. It was performed by four people--two REers and two FEers (one from each 'team' was considered a "referee"). A survey telescope was leveled a certain distance above the canal, with two markers--three and six miles away--each the same height above the water. Both referees agreed that both markers were below the horizontal of the leveled telescope, meaning the land does indeed drop away as it goes to the horizon.

You can read about that here: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,54769.msg1354758.html#msg1354758

Or the primary source material here:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=A237.2&pageseq=1