What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth

So do the obstructions, which (in this building/wall scenario), I am backing away from while still looking over the top of.

You don't think that as you move back, the wall would eventually block the horizon? 

The horizon, yes. 
The building, no.

My line of sight would be limited to 5 feet above the horizon.  Everything below that 5 foot level would be hidden behind the wall.  The building however, is taller than 5 feet.

The horizon, yes. 
The building, no.

My line of sight would be limited to 5 feet above the horizon.  Everything below that 5 foot level would be hidden behind the wall.  The building however, is taller than 5 feet.

Here, let me try to simplify it for you.

Your diagrams show roughly a 2 foot difference between the top of the wall and one's eyes.  That makes it even easier.  The bottom pictures shows a line of sight that would allow one to start seeing the ground only a little ways out.  The building in the distance would be quite visible according to that.

Your diagrams show roughly a 2 foot difference between the top of the wall and one's eyes.  That makes it even easier.  The bottom pictures shows a line of sight that would allow one to start seeing the ground only a little ways out.  The building in the distance would be quite visible according to that.

I did not draw it to scale.  I was just showing that the further back you are, the less you see.
The drawing was meant to be a reference.  I could draw it to scale, if I really cared. 

And the further back one moves, the more parallel to the ground that line of sight becomes.  As long as one's eyes are still higher than the wall, with Earth being flat for this scenario, that line of sight and the ground will only be that... 'parallel' (actually not even 100% parallel, 99.999% or such, depending how level my pupils are with the top of the wall and how far back one moves), which means at most, the bottom 5 feet of the building will be hidden.

By all means, draw it to scale.  Or don't.  I did a scale drawing for the buildings over the lake for that Chicago thread a few months ago.  I'll do a scale drawing for this later tonight or tomorrow if you don't want to.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 08, 2013, 08:42:07 PM

Your diagrams show roughly a 2 foot difference between the top of the wall and one's eyes.  That makes it even easier.  The bottom pictures shows a line of sight that would allow one to start seeing the ground only a little ways out.  The building in the distance would be quite visible according to that.

I did not draw it to scale.  I was just showing that the further back you are, the less you see.
The drawing was meant to be a reference.  I could draw it to scale, if I really cared.

Just out of curiosity, how far do you need to move back in order for that wall to start blocking the view of things above your eye level?

I am not going to do the calculations for you markjo, just because you want me to waste my time.  You can do the calculations if you wish.  I was just giving a visual representation of what occurs.  Are you arguing that it does not occur? 

Yes, I contend that a wall below your eye level will never block your view of an object above your eye level.  I challenge you to prove me wrong.

markjo, please think about this.  The building in the background would be small.  The wall would be less small, because it is relatively close to you.  Why would it not cover up the building in the background? 

markjo, please think about this.  The building in the background would be small.  The wall would be less small, because it is relatively close to you.  Why would it not cover up the building in the background?

Because the building is higher than your eye level, but the wall isn't.

Quote from: tappet on November 08, 2013, 12:34:48 PM

When I see sinking ships on the horizon  there is always swell the ships are as big and close as your picture and you can see them with the naked eye, no magnification is needed.
When sea's are flat glassy without swell ships are a shapeless dot on top of the horizon which you then need to zoom in with magnification.
Silverdane gave me an explanation which explains how I see what I see.
At no stage have you explained to me how I see what I see all you are saying is that I am wrong and my eyes are not working correctly. All you are trying to do is tell me something occurs when it does not. You are trying to tell me how a ship  would sink on flat glassy sea with no swell, I have never seen this neither have you and I am calling bullshit here.

The swelling is a factor how close to shore the ship appears to sink, but the sinking effect is still caused by the curvature.

Check out my diagram, which speaks for itself.

In my world with my eyes the ships near shore are big, the further they are out to sea the smaller they get until they are tiny dots on the horizon unless of course the swell picks up and they appear to sink. In in your cartoon world they stay the same size no matter how far out the ships are. You will never warp my mind!

markjo, things that are far away are small.  They can be so small that they can barely be seen.  If you can't see the horizon, then can you say for absolute sure that you can see something that is a little bit higher than the horizon from a point behind a wall that is covering up most of your view, including the horizon? 

The true horizon is always below eye level.

markjo, things that are far away are small.  They can be so small that they can barely be seen.  If you can't see the horizon, then can you say for absolute sure that you can see something that is a little bit higher than the horizon from a point behind a wall that is covering up most of your view, including the horizon?

Why would a wall that can be seen over block the horizon?  If my eye level is at 6ft and the wall is at 4ft, when would this wall block the horizon?

Look at the pictures I posted.  The farther you go away from the wall, the less you can see.

Yes, but as my eye level is above the wall, and the wall also shrinks as I back away from it, the wall cannot block the entire building.  This is because the line of site is alway aiming downwards.

There is always a downward slope from my eye level of 6ft to the height of the wall at 4ft.

Imagine that there is a tall building in the horizon.  You can see most of it, but it appears small.  Now, imagine that there is a 5ft. wall right in front of you and you are observing the building over.

You with me so far?  Now, imagine walking backwards.  Would the wall not block that tall  building after you took a few steps backwards? 

Now picture the same scenario up on top of a tall building.  I don't see what the problem is here.  Small thing that are close can block farther things that are big.  It is simple perspective.

My eye level would be about 6" above that wall, and if the earth were completely flat and level, I would always be able to see the distant building over that wall, no matter how far I backed away from it. The wall would never obstruct my line of sight to the building, unless I crouched down, at which point moving further away from the wall would actually make it easier to see the distant building.

So, if I remained standing and backed an infinite distance away from the wall on a flat earth, only 5' of the building would be obscured (not that I'd be able to see either at an infinite distance of course ). If I crouched right down, then how much I can see of the building depends on it's height and the distance I am from the wall. If it's a 20' building, and my eye line when I'm crouched is 2' off the ground, then I'd start seeing the building once I had backed away from the wall by one fifth of the distance between the wall and the building. Once the wall was halfway between me and the building, I would be able to see more than half of the building. This is all very simple geometry, so I hope you haven't gotten lost along the way.

Oh, and I don't argue that small things can hide large things; a marble can hide a beach ball if held in the right place.

In my world with my eyes the ships near shore are big, the further they are out to sea the smaller they get until they are tiny dots on the horizon unless of course the swell picks up and they appear to sink. In in your cartoon world they stay the same size no matter how far out the ships are. You will never warp my mind!

The swells at a distance also get smaller due to perspective. So what nonsense arguement do you try to make here? Also, if you take out a binocular or  telescope you are able to spot lots of details again....so Tappet, just stop playing around and make a diagram that works for a flat earth, because nothing can. Or at least admit there is no way it can be explained for a flat earth.

Jroa firs this diagram, which is pretty self explanatory.

Again, to all flat earthers....show me a diagram that does work with a ship/swell and the sinking effect.

I will not be drawn into a debate drawing cartoons.  How can I debate against a cartoon they do not look like reality,  you can draw anything. You are telling me to stop playing around, and then you are  asking me to draw cartoons.
You are claiming sinking ship proves round earth by using a video with swell and cartoons. Show me the sinking ship on the millpond. Your the one making the big claim about your round earth with your ships sinking, and all I have said is I have never seen this happen on a millpond. So I ask again "Show me sinking ship on a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell".
I have already said I have no  attachment to either earth so why do I need to do a cartoon flat earth style. 

I will not be drawn into a debate drawing cartoons.  How can I debate against a cartoon they do not look like reality,  you can draw anything. You are telling me to stop playing around, and then you are  asking me to draw cartoons.
You are claiming sinking ship proves round earth by using a video with swell and cartoons. Show me the sinking ship on the millpond. Your the one making the big claim about your round earth with your ships sinking, and all I have said is I have never seen this happen on a millpond. So I ask again "Show me sinking ship on a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell".
I have already said I have no  attachment to either earth so why do I need to do a cartoon flat earth style.

Tappet, you should seriously learn the difference between a cartoon and a diagram.

Look, here's another diagram...

And you go complain..."Oh it's a cartoon...oh it's not real...." Of course it's not real, but it's a depiction of the real thing! The diagrams show you the principle. Everything has been taken into account that is of relevance. I've demonstrated you how swells can cause a ship to 'sink' closer to shore, but you'll see that under any conditions ship will 'sink'. In small swells, in very large swells. The swells have no effect at all. If you live near the coast, just keep your eye out for a flat glassy sea and make a video when ships do NOT sink when they're sailing towards the horizon.

I've demonstrated in countless ways that the swell is of no factor. Now you go demonstrate how it should be a factor!

I am not declaring "flat and glassy sea proves flat earth" so I don't have to do anything. Your the one sticking your chest out claiming" sinking ship proves round earth". As I have said I have seen sinking ship with swell but never seen sinking ship on a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell since you have could you show me some evidence.
Please don't include cartoons/diagrams.

I am not declaring "flat and glassy sea proves flat earth" so I don't have to do anything. Your the one sticking your chest out claiming" sinking ship proves round earth". As I have said I have seen sinking ship with swell but never seen sinking ship on a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell since you have could you show me some evidence.
Please don't include cartoons/diagrams.

Tappet, c'mon now....

Then explain to me...why would the swell be a factor? I've shown you with simple diagrams it's not. I'd like to hear/see from you now, why it should..

Don I cannot give you an explanation for what I see, I don't know how it works. So this is why I ask you to prove your claim without using diagrams. Of course you can make a diagram work, but in real life I have never seen ships sink on a millpond.

Don I cannot give you an explanation for what I see, I don't know how it works. So this is why I ask you to prove your claim without using diagrams. Of course you can make a diagram work, but in real life I have never seen ships sink on a millpond.

Alright well at least that's something....a millpond is usually not very large. So the effect of the curvature would be quite minimal. If you take that the earth has a circumference of 40,000 km, you can calculate that for every degree (circle has 360 degrees) you need to travel 111 km. But you can try...put a camera really close to the surface of the water and take a photo. Now place your camera higher and take another photo. Please take into account the scale when you do. One centimeter in height difference could mean tens of meter on the true scale. But you will see that the other side of the millpond disappeared slightly.

Anyway there is another way to show the earth is curved. Very long structure such as bridges. This one for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verrazano%E2%80%93Narrows_Bridge

Because of the height of the towers (693 ft or 211 m) and their distance apart (4,260 ft or 1,298 m), the curvature of the Earth's surface had to be taken into account when designing the bridge—the towers are 1 5⁄8 inches (41.275 mm) farther apart at their tops than at their bases

Look at the pictures I posted.  The farther you go away from the wall, the less you can see.

The further you go away from the wall, the smaller the wall appears and the less it can block.