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

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!

Wow.... You realize those diagrams are 2D right?  They're not drawn as a 3D representation.  If the ships to the right in the "cartoon" were drawn smaller, that means they would be represented as being physically smaller.

If there are two identical ships a mile apart from each other, 3 miles from shore, and you are at the shore (on a rise or cliff so those swells won't be an issue), would you expect the right ship to appear smaller than the left ship from your perspective? 

Quote from: tappet on November 08, 2013, 10:46:20 PM

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!

Wow.... You realize those diagrams are 2D right?  They're not drawn as a 3D representation.  If the ships to the right in the "cartoon" were drawn smaller, that means they would be represented as being physically smaller.

If there are two identical ships a mile apart from each other, 3 miles from shore, and you are at the shore (on a rise or cliff so those swells won't be an issue), would you expect the right ship to appear smaller than the left ship from your perspective?

You cannot draw reality, you put to much faith in your 2 dimensional drawings. You can draw pictures all day long but I have observed something in real life that does not match your pictures. I cannot argue about bridges, buildings, lakes and sinking effects with these things because I have no experience with them, but when it comes to sinking ship on the sea try to listen to this.
When there is a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell ships are a tiny dot on top of the horizon, when the wind picks up the swell increases the ships will sink very large, clear and close to shore. Now if I am telling the truth what use would your calculations and drawings be to me when they don't match what I see.  So personally I think the sinking ship proves round earth should not be used by anyone until some serious research is done here which includes all of the different sea conditions. Using a video of a boat in only one sea condition, some maths and a drawing to make a claim about the shape of your world may   be enough for your reality but not for mine.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 09, 2013, 09:32:50 AM

Quote from: tappet on November 08, 2013, 10:46:20 PM

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!

Wow.... You realize those diagrams are 2D right?  They're not drawn as a 3D representation.  If the ships to the right in the "cartoon" were drawn smaller, that means they would be represented as being physically smaller.

If there are two identical ships a mile apart from each other, 3 miles from shore, and you are at the shore (on a rise or cliff so those swells won't be an issue), would you expect the right ship to appear smaller than the left ship from your perspective?

You cannot draw reality, you put to much faith in your 2 dimensional drawings. You can draw pictures all day long but I have observed something in real life that does not match your pictures. I cannot argue about bridges, buildings, lakes and sinking effects with these things because I have no experience with them, but when it comes to sinking ship on the sea try to listen to this.
When there is a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell ships are a tiny dot on top of the horizon, when the wind picks up the swell increases the ships will sink very large, clear and close to shore. Now if I am telling the truth what use would your calculations and drawings be to me when they don't match what I see.  So personally I think the sinking ship proves round earth should not be used by anyone until some serious research is done here which includes all of the different sea conditions. Using a video of a boat in only one sea condition, some maths and a drawing to make a claim about the shape of your world may   be enough for your reality but not for mine.

I would really like to see some pictures of these ships on the horizon. Do you think you could manage that next time the sea is calm? If you could also use varying levels of magnification, that would also be helpful. Even better, if you can track one particular ship from near to shore out to the horizon (or vice versa) that would be great! I can't do any of this, since I do not live near the coast.

You cannot draw reality, you put to much faith in your 2 dimensional drawings. You can draw pictures all day long but I have observed something in real life that does not match your pictures. I cannot argue about bridges, buildings, lakes and sinking effects with these things because I have no experience with them, but when it comes to sinking ship on the sea try to listen to this.

I was merely saying there's no reason to draw things different sizes to compensate for perspective in these 2D diagrams, unless you believe two objects of equal physical size and distance from you would appear to be sized differently simply because they're spaced apart from each other (but still equal distance from you). 

I wonder if you or jroa believe that to be true.  If so, could you explain?

When there is a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell ships are a tiny dot on top of the horizon, when the wind picks up the swell increases the ships will sink very large, clear and close to shore. Now if I am telling the truth what use would your calculations and drawings be to me when they don't match what I see.  So personally I think the sinking ship proves round earth should not be used by anyone until some serious research is done here which includes all of the different sea conditions. Using a video of a boat in only one sea condition, some maths and a drawing to make a claim about the shape of your world may   be enough for your reality but not for mine.

The problem with that flat and glassy sea, is reflection and refraction. 

But, here you go anyway.  The left picture was taken from an elevation of about 1.5 feet.  The right from about 7-8 feet.  The bridge is 9 miles away, the hillside is 12 miles.  The boat was between me and the bridge, but I don't know the exact distance.  I think I know which island it goes to, so I could get a rough idea if I find the course it takes.  I wish I'd gotten up higher soon enough to capture the ferry from that height too, but maybe next time.  I'll also mention there are houses along that shoreline that were visible in a previous set I took when the height difference was much more due to the tide and a different refractive index based on temperature.

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.

This isn't on the scale of a large building miles away.  More of a 9-10 foot wall around 3-400feet away.  The person next to the 5 foot wall can see the ground a short distance away.  The person further back can't see the ground, but can see the far wall, of which only 4.5 feet are hidden.  I could increase the distances (30,000 pixels), but the results will still basically show the same.  A 5 foot wall won't obscure more than 5 feet of a distant object as long as my line of sight is above the wall.
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/6238/cg64.jpg

Link- zoom in- scroll side to side.

Quote from: tappet on November 09, 2013, 01:39:38 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 09, 2013, 09:32:50 AM

Quote from: tappet on November 08, 2013, 10:46:20 PM

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!

Wow.... You realize those diagrams are 2D right?  They're not drawn as a 3D representation.  If the ships to the right in the "cartoon" were drawn smaller, that means they would be represented as being physically smaller.

If there are two identical ships a mile apart from each other, 3 miles from shore, and you are at the shore (on a rise or cliff so those swells won't be an issue), would you expect the right ship to appear smaller than the left ship from your perspective?

You cannot draw reality, you put to much faith in your 2 dimensional drawings. You can draw pictures all day long but I have observed something in real life that does not match your pictures. I cannot argue about bridges, buildings, lakes and sinking effects with these things because I have no experience with them, but when it comes to sinking ship on the sea try to listen to this.
When there is a flat and glassy sea devoid of swell ships are a tiny dot on top of the horizon, when the wind picks up the swell increases the ships will sink very large, clear and close to shore. Now if I am telling the truth what use would your calculations and drawings be to me when they don't match what I see.  So personally I think the sinking ship proves round earth should not be used by anyone until some serious research is done here which includes all of the different sea conditions. Using a video of a boat in only one sea condition, some maths and a drawing to make a claim about the shape of your world may   be enough for your reality but not for mine.

I would really like to see some pictures of these ships on the horizon. Do you think you could manage that next time the sea is calm? If you could also use varying levels of magnification, that would also be helpful. Even better, if you can track one particular ship from near to shore out to the horizon (or vice versa) that would be great! I can't do any of this, since I do not live near the coast.

I have an idea that may satisfy you and  that is you go to the coast and you look at a sinking ship do not take a scope or anything of magnification you will not need it, it is important you look with only your eyes so you can see for yourself how easy it is to see with no magnification. If you cannot manage this surely you have a friend or family member you trust that can or has seen sinking ship with no magnification. It must be somebody of your choice as you would never believe any evidence I put forward. Now once you get it into your head you can see the sinking ship with no magnification then think about the video's I have posted and imagine if the video's did not zoom. If this does not work ask the person you trust if the ships are sinking as close when it is calm compared to it being rough. Its no use me stuffing around making video's, for you would deny anything that I produced. If you are serious about knowing the truth you definitely do not need me.
I have no emotional attachment to the shape of the earth so I don't have to prove anything to anyone. If I were to make a claim "flat sea proves flat earth" then I may feel I need to prove myself and If challenged I would make sure all variables are covered, but its you guy's making the claim and because I question what you claim  you want me to now go to the trouble of disproving it. To me when you say sinking ship proves round earth its like saying unicorns exist then you want me to go to all the trouble to prove they don't . This is why I ask to see your sinking ship on flat glassy sea with zero swell or a unicorn.

Well, I have been to the coast in the past, along Queensland's south coast, NSW's coast in various places, Victoria's Great Ocean Road and other locations, and the WA coast. A couple of things I noticed on those trips: increasing altitude brought more things into view, the higher you went the more you could see, like the oil/gas rigs in Bass Strait;  and container ships anchored near Newcastle went from appearing to be below the horizon when close to shore, to sitting on the horizon, to being progressively hidden by it when they passed further away (this on a pretty calm sea too).

One point there I'd like to expand on: from a high-ish vantage point, the ships appeared to be traveling up a hill, cresting it, then going down the far side. On a flat earth, this would not ever be the case: the ships would have appeared to shrink as they drew closer to the horizon, eventually becoming impossible to see (without magnification), without ever having "gone over the hill"! This is because, on a flat earth, the ships being below eye level would always be below eye level, and the horizon being at eye level, would therefore always be above the ship.

Make sense?

I was only asking you to do these photos if you could because I never did any when I was there (it was some time ago), and I also wanted to see if you could show me (and everyone else, of course!) the exact phenomenon you are talking about.

Next time your in Newcastle stop there for a couple days and do a bit of surfing. Calm winds calm sea's jump off the end of the baths with your board and you wont even get your hair wet sit on your board look out to sea and you will count about 30 coal not container ships  sitting nicely on the horizon some closer of course but nothing sinking. You have no choice but to look at the ships because if a wave does come through it will be from that direction. When the S.E wind picks up things change as this beach cannot handle big S.E swell. At this point everyone will head around the other side of the baths to the Cowrie Hole or Nobby's. To the left of the flags at Nobby's you will get the grommet's surfing but if your more adventurous you head out further to the reef (the goat boats get annoying out there though) .Now when your sitting out on Nobby's Reef the swells are getting big in these conditions you keep your eyes looking east you don't want to drift north or you will get smashed as its a left hand break. So with your concentration to the east what do you see sinking ships. Then do this nearly every day for many years after a while what the ships are doing sticks in your mind.

Coal ships, yes, sorry! Like I said, it's been a while. Oh, and I don't surf. Never spent enough time on the coast!

The coal ship thing may have come off a bit nit picky, but your post took me back to Newcastle surfing with the lads.

I think the answer to "What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth ?"  is :

Nothing.

I think you're missing the point; the point of FET is not to prove that the Earth is flat, it seems(through this site) that the point of FET is simply to argue against the Earth being spherical.
I expect you could take these people into orbit and let them see with their own eyes and they still would not believe it.

It's what's called a lost cause.

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 11, 2013, 10:16:53 PM

I think the answer to "What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth ?"  is :

Nothing.

I think you're missing the point; the point of FET is not to prove that the Earth is flat, it seems(through this site) that the point of FET is simply to argue against the Earth being spherical.
I expect you could take these people into orbit and let them see with their own eyes and they still would not believe it.

It's what's called a lost cause.

Now I feel as though I am a lost cause. Next time you are heading into orbit could you take me for a ride please?

Quote from: Jorhan Brimve Stahl on November 21, 2013, 03:59:56 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 11, 2013, 10:16:53 PM

I think the answer to "What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth ?"  is :

Nothing.

I think you're missing the point; the point of FET is not to prove that the Earth is flat, it seems(through this site) that the point of FET is simply to argue against the Earth being spherical.
I expect you could take these people into orbit and let them see with their own eyes and they still would not believe it.

It's what's called a lost cause.

Now I feel as though I am a lost cause. Next time you are heading into orbit could you take me for a ride please?

You have no idea how many people would if they could. It's amazing how far some people would go just to prove a point. I however, would still see it as a lost cause. I would take an FET'er into orbit and hear another lecture about aetheric winds and optical illusions.

Maybe if Skylon manages to do their work, spacefaring could become affordable.

Quote from: Jorhan Brimve Stahl on November 21, 2013, 03:59:56 AM

Quote from: Googleotomy on October 11, 2013, 10:16:53 PM

I think the answer to "What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth ?"  is :

Nothing.

I think you're missing the point; the point of FET is not to prove that the Earth is flat, it seems(through this site) that the point of FET is simply to argue against the Earth being spherical.
I expect you could take these people into orbit and let them see with their own eyes and they still would not believe it.

It's what's called a lost cause.

Now I feel as though I am a lost cause. Next time you are heading into orbit could you take me for a ride please?

Has anyone mentioned that kid that sent a balloon with camera and video recorder up to the edge of space?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9531419/Teenager-floats-30-camera-into-space-to-capture-curvature-of-Earth.html

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Balloon with camera goes to space. amazing

Spank86, are you trying to offer that as proof that the horizon looks curved from "the edge of space"?  If so, you are really making yourself look silly.  Watch the video again.  The horizon looks curved almost immediately after the balloon is released.  In fact, within seconds after release, the horizon appears to be convex, then flat, then even concave at some points.  It is called a wide angle lense.

I am not claiming dishonesty on your part for posting the video as evidence of curvature from space.  However, I am claiming dishonesty on the part of the people who made the video and entitled it Teenager-floats-30-camera-into-space-to-capture-curvature-of-Earth when it is very obvious that the curvature was caused by the lens.  Not to mention that neither the old bald man with the goatee, nor the countdown kid with the lollypop were in fact teenagers. 

If I was offering it as proof that the horizon looks curved from the edge of space I would have said "hey guys here's proof..."

I was offering it as an interesting video and evidence that we could in fact afford to do experiments to prove the shape of the earth and the layout of the continents if we so chose.


EDIT: actually the bit I may have fecked up is that I think those are two different, unconnected experiments.

The telegraph appears to have been reporting on an entirely different thing than the video,

That is odd that you would post the video in a thread called What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth when you were not offering it as proof.  Also, I don't think the balloon went nearly high enough to see an entire continent, much less any kind of layout of the continents. 

That is odd that you would post the video in a thread called What proof would fe-ers accept as evidence of a spherical earth when you were not offering it as proof.  Also, I don't think the balloon went nearly high enough to see an entire continent, much less any kind of layout of the continents.

it was with regards to the comments on people being unable to achieve orbit, or have any ways to research space.


I wasn't suggesting a single balloon would be enough to map the world, but a few in different places could rule out a number of suggestions such as the monopolar model.

What did the balloon have to do with either orbit or space?  It was not in either.  If you are just trying to say that it is possible to go high up in the air, then I don't think anyone will disagree with you. 

What did the balloon have to do with either orbit or space?  It was not in either.  If you are just trying to say that it is possible to go high up in the air, then I don't think anyone will disagree with you.

I'd answer that only I don't know what your personal thoughts on the threshold that you'd consider "space".
I think the balloon got at least half way to what NASA would consider space, that's not bad going on a hundred quid or so.

Incidentally Prince Harry trotted off to see your Ice Wall this week, not sure he's found it yet so I guess we're going with the bi-polar model today.