Unsure of flat or not but here's something interesting

I was reading about the Titanic sinking.  I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away.  Quite a distance.  One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.

(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)

I saw a documentary suggesting that extreme refraction due to dramatic temperature changes as they entered the Labrador Current may have been why the lookouts weren't able to see the iceberg until it was too late.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/did-the-titanic-sink-because-of-an-optical-illusion-102040309/?no-ist

This is one of the reasons that I generally don't trust water convexity observations as evidence for or against the shape of the earth.

My understanding is that the currents were so still it was hard to see anything.

I also believe that it was sunk on purpose, which would be why Smith was going like a bat out of hell through the ice field.  I might post what I've read in another section here, it's rather interesting.

I was just focusing on the distance.  That jumped out at me, as I never heard of someone being able to see 10-12 miles ahead.

I've seen shoreline structures 12 miles away while viewing from less than a foot above the water.  Those structures had a flattened appearance though, and the higher features of the ridge, etc, were not distorted, but noticeably sunken toward the waterline/horizon.  The structures were not as flattened and the ridge not as sunken when viewed from higher up.  Superior mirage (refraction) conditions.

The lights of the two ships were much higher than my viewing elevation and the shoreline structure's elevations.

I remember seeing Toronto from Skylon Tower at Niagara Falls.    That's about 75 miles if I remember right.

I was just focusing on the distance.  That jumped out at me, as I never heard of someone being able to see 10-12 miles ahead.

That's why boats have a crow's nest - if the world were flat they wouldn't need one.

Just being 80 feet up means you can see 12 miles - the Titanic's crow's nest was 90 feet high, so it could potentially have been spotted. 

A story came out a while ago however, that the binoculars that should have been used in the nest were still locked up....adding to the fact that the 'berg was composed of dark ice, and the sea was very calm probably made it very difficult to see.

But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature?  If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?

Just a question I have.

Apparently, it was a combination of darkness, the binoculars were locked up and it was cold, so the lookout's eyes couldn't focus well.

If you are infinitely high up (and could see an infinite distance, zoom an infinite amount etc.) you can see a little more than half the surface of the planet (thanks to refraction). The math gets more complicated the higher up you are. There are a few online calculators that works well with not too large distances, like this one:

https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/

They are not 100% accurate, but good enough as long as you don't go overboard with the numbers.

I was reading about the Titanic sinking.  I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away.  Quite a distance.  One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.

(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)

The higher up you are the further you can see and the further you can be seen from.  Both the observer and the tip of the ice berg were quite high up in this instance so it makes sense that the ice berg could be seen from that far away.  If I had exact numbers for the height of the ice berg and the height of the observer then I can make precise calculations of how far the ice berg should be visible from.  The fact that a scenario like this is rather rare proves that Earth is round, if it were flat then I should be able to see Las Vegas from my house in Utah but I can't.

I have become fairly good ad debunking flat Earth related things.  Just tell me why you suspect Earth is flat.

But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature?  If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?

Just a question I have.

How far away something can be seen doesn't just depend on your height but the height of the thing you are observing.  Taller things can be seen from further because you have to be further away from them for Earth's curvature to obstruct the entire thing.  If you want to know the maximum radius you can see assuming the object being observed is at sea level then just use Master_Evar's calculator but if the object being observed is above sea level then calculate your horizon distance in your current location and your horizon distance if you were standing on the top of the object being observed, then just add the numbers together.

It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.

The simple way to tell is to remember one thing. Keeping your vision perfectly horizontal.
If you keep your vision perfectly horizontal whether you stand at sea level or run up a high rise building to watch a sun set again, this should be the absolute proof of a flat/flattish Earth and absolutely NOT a globe.

Why?

Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.

However, if that person then decides to run up a high rise building to view a setting sun again by horizontal eye level then that person would be looking into the sky because the high rise is on a slight angle back over along with your eye view to the new horizon.

The sun would be totally gone from the start and be well gone when you run up a building.....unless the Earth was flat in which your view from   higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun  over the dome.

It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.

Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.

What are you babbling on about now?

higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun  over the dome.

- what?  Moving away sun?

 Why don't you draw us a diagram of how sunsets occur under your ice dome?  No, thought not.  Just more excuses.

It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.

and

It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.

From ANYWHERE on Flat Earth disk, you can not see the South Celestial Pole (the center of southern star trails) (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140319-antarctica-big-bang-inflation-telescope-south-pole-astronomy/). Looking south, the arcs would get bigger and bigger (the biggest on stars above Antarctica - 40,000+ mi in diameter). The SCP is directly above the TRUE S. Pole (not Antarctica on a disk - but under the disk - UNDER the N. Pole). This picture is IMPOSSIBLE on any form of disk. The apparent 54 deg angle of the SCP in the photo coincides precisely where it should be on a sphere (S. Georgia Island latitude is 54.25 deg south). This directly disproves ANY flat disk and therefore the Flat Earth fantasy (love WeissEdel's word).

Easiest direct proof/disproof of ANY Flat Earth model/map:

• Get a rotating disk (merry-go-round, Lazy Susan, bicycle wheel, etc.)
• Get a movie camera (cellphone on movie mode)
• Place it directly above the "N. Pole" and take a 10 sec exposure.
• You will see star trails with the NCP in the middle.
• Place it ANYWHERE on the disk facing south and take an exposure.
• You will see ARCs. NO star trails with the SCP in the middle.
• The star trails and the SCP can ONLY be seen UNDER the disk.

BTW, if you did this on a globe, you would see the sky exactly as photographed from EARTH.

Your Sun argument, doesn't matter then... so...
FE'ers, I am curious, if the Earth isn't flat nor spherical (as you keep trying to prove) then what is it?

It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.

The simple way to tell is to remember one thing. Keeping your vision perfectly horizontal.
If you keep your vision perfectly horizontal whether you stand at sea level or run up a high rise building to watch a sun set again, this should be the absolute proof of a flat/flattish Earth and absolutely NOT a globe.

Why?

Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.

However, if that person then decides to run up a high rise building to view a setting sun again by horizontal eye level then that person would be looking into the sky because the high rise is on a slight angle back over along with your eye view to the new horizon.

The angle is minor.  It will take equipment other than simply 'thinking you're line of sight is level and looking'.  Sunrise and sunset (and moonrise and moonset) are proof of RE because on FE they would appear to change size and never get close to the horizon.

The sun would be totally gone from the start and be well gone when you run up a building.....unless the Earth was flat in which your view from   higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun  over the dome.

It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.

Did you ever even come up with a working model of how these dome reflections work in order to match reality?

It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.

Then why havn't you won my $250 challenge?  You seemed to give up on that pretty quickly.

My understanding is that the currents were so still it was hard to see anything.

I also believe that it was sunk on purpose, which would be why Smith was going like a bat out of hell through the ice field.  I might post what I've read in another section here, it's rather interesting.

You are close.  You are starting to peek deeper down the rabbit hole. 
Just wait until you discover that the "Titanic" did not sink at all. 

Quote from: Alexandra1973 on October 18, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

I was reading about the Titanic sinking.  I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away.  Quite a distance.  One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.

(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)

The higher up you are the further you can see and the further you can be seen from.  Both the observer and the tip of the ice berg were quite high up in this instance so it makes sense that the ice berg could be seen from that far away.  If I had exact numbers for the height of the ice berg and the height of the observer then I can make precise calculations of how far the ice berg should be visible from.  The fact that a scenario like this is rather rare proves that Earth is round, if it were flat then I should be able to see Las Vegas from my house in Utah but I can't.

I have become fairly good ad debunking flat Earth related things.  Just tell me why you suspect Earth is flat.

Quote from: Alexandra1973 on October 19, 2015, 06:49:45 AM

But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature?  If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?

Just a question I have.

How far away something can be seen doesn't just depend on your height but the height of the thing you are observing.  Taller things can be seen from further because you have to be further away from them for Earth's curvature to obstruct the entire thing.  If you want to know the maximum radius you can see assuming the object being observed is at sea level then just use Master_Evar's calculator but if the object being observed is above sea level then calculate your horizon distance in your current location and your horizon distance if you were standing on the top of the object being observed, then just add the numbers together.

My calculator also works for objects above sea level, as long as you know the distance the object is at above sea level. "Hidden height" means how much of the bottom of an object is being covered. If the top of the object is lower than the hidden height, it is completely obstructed.

Generally speaking you cannot see farther than 300 miles. The air is refracting the light. Depending on temperature, currents etc.  you might be able to see 350 miles, you might see fewer than 200 miles.

It should be absolutely clear to anyone that the Earth is not a globe by one simple thought and observation.
The sun set or anything viewed over distance should absolutely clear up the notion that the Earth is absolutely not a globe.

The simple way to tell is to remember one thing. Keeping your vision perfectly horizontal.
If you keep your vision perfectly horizontal whether you stand at sea level or run up a high rise building to watch a sun set again, this should be the absolute proof of a flat/flattish Earth and absolutely NOT a globe.

Why?

Because if this Earth were spinning and the sun was going down due to that spin AWAY from it, then a person sees that sun disappear as the person supposedly falls back over on the spinning Earth as that person looks horizontal to the horizon.

However, if that person then decides to run up a high rise building to view a setting sun again by horizontal eye level then that person would be looking into the sky because the high rise is on a slight angle back over along with your eye view to the new horizon.

The sun would be totally gone from the start and be well gone when you run up a building.....unless the Earth was flat in which your view from   higher up creates a clearer line of sight to a moving away sun  over the dome.

It's 1 billion % certain and there should be no real argument for those who possess a thinking brain.

Might want to revisit trigonometry class.....

For the record I don't believe the earth moves at all.  Now whether it's a sphere or not, with me the jury's out on that.  The sun, moon, stars, etc., move; the earth does not.  Yep, I'm a geocentrist. 

Quote from: Alexandra1973 on October 18, 2015, 12:45:56 PM

I was reading about the Titanic sinking.  I find it very interesting that the crew of the Californian was able to see it from 10-12 miles away.  Quite a distance.  One would think that on a round earth they wouldn't be able to see each other.

(Still undecided, but I'm catching all these little things here and there.)

The higher up you are the further you can see and the further you can be seen from.  Both the observer and the tip of the ice berg were quite high up in this instance so it makes sense that the ice berg could be seen from that far away.  If I had exact numbers for the height of the ice berg and the height of the observer then I can make precise calculations of how far the ice berg should be visible from.  The fact that a scenario like this is rather rare proves that Earth is round, if it were flat then I should be able to see Las Vegas from my house in Utah but I can't.

I have become fairly good ad debunking flat Earth related things.  Just tell me why you suspect Earth is flat.

Quote from: Alexandra1973 on October 19, 2015, 06:49:45 AM

But how high up would you have to be not to be able to see after a certain point due to curvature?  If I'm 100 miles up I should be able to see for a radius of X miles...what's the maximum radius?

Just a question I have.

How far away something can be seen doesn't just depend on your height but the height of the thing you are observing.  Taller things can be seen from further because you have to be further away from them for Earth's curvature to obstruct the entire thing.  If you want to know the maximum radius you can see assuming the object being observed is at sea level then just use Master_Evar's calculator but if the object being observed is above sea level then calculate your horizon distance in your current location and your horizon distance if you were standing on the top of the object being observed, then just add the numbers together.

Iceberg my ass , the Titanic never sunk .it was the already damaged & patched up  Olympic deliberately scuttled for insurance money . The cover story used was the book the futility , the wreck of the titan.written 14 years earlier .

For the record I don't believe the earth moves at all.  Now whether it's a sphere or not, with me the jury's out on that.  The sun, moon, stars, etc., move; the earth does not.  Yep, I'm a geocentrist. 

How do you figure?

According to Einstein no experiment can determine if you are moving or how fast you are moving simply because "stationary" doesn't exist.  It seems crazy at first glance, but consider this:

Imagine you woke up in an enclosed box with no windows or doors and you want to know if the box is stationary or inside a moving vehicle.  You might try to feel any road bumps or terbulemce, but for all you know you are stationary and the box is being bounced around a bit to simulate turbulence or road bumps.  Reguardless of weather the box is moving all experiments you do in the box will yield the same results including throwing things, measuring the speed of light, and any other experiment that's possible.

The distinction between things moving and being stationary is just a construct of our minds, and as such it's rather easy into tricking our minds to prove this.  Yesterday I was in a car with my dad driving and the car just pulled into a parking lot.  I saw the car next to us pulling out of the parking lot and for a moment I could have sworn that we were the ones who were moving, but then I figured out that we were stationary and it was a real mind trip.  Even though by your definition I was stationary I felt like I was moving, and if you are on a movong plane you can often feel like you are stationary.  The distinction is as much an illusion of the mind as the concept of up and down.

Geocentricity:  http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

No question the earth stands still.  I'm just questioning the shape of it.

Geocentricity:  http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

No question the earth stands still.  I'm just questioning the shape of it.

If Earth stood still then Lunar tides would be only a single bulge rather then two bulges on opposite sides of the Earth.  I happen to know a YouTube chanel that thouroughly debunks geocentrism and another that debunks flat Earth.

One thing you have to remember about the Bible is that it has been translated many times and that has messed up a few things.  Languages differ a lot, it's not just a matter of replacing one word with another.  A great example of this is the Bible discribing the Earth as a circle in one place and yet also mentions the "corners of the Earth".  I actually looked into the verse that called Earth a circle and the word used to discribe Earth's shape in the original Hebrew Bible is a word that apears to discribe roundless in general, other possible English translations given were orb, sphere, and ring.  You cannot interpret the Bible so literally because it was mataphorical to begin with and then it got translated by imperfect humans who make mistakes.

When the Bible was first translated into English, two translations were independently made.  These trnslations differed in many ways because they were imperfectly translated by imperfect people.  Two religions formed around these Bibles and they were constantly fighting with each other.  Eventually to solve the conflict a bunch of linguists compared individual verses from both Bibles to the original and picked out the most correct translation, and they compiled the King James version of the Bible that most Christians use today.  Copies of the original Hebrew bible still exist, and by learning the meaning of the individual words you can rather slowly decode the original meaning with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

For the record I don't believe the earth moves at all.  Now whether it's a sphere or not, with me the jury's out on that.  The sun, moon, stars, etc., move; the earth does not.  Yep, I'm a geocentrist. 

Umm... Motion is Relative (MoR) so you can be a geocentrist and heliocentrist at the same time depending on your point of view. A person can walk at 3 mph around the equator and see the Sun rise and set (apparent geocentric effects). From the N. Pole, the person is moving 1003 mph and the Sun goes around at 1000 mph. From the Sun, the Earth is rotating and moving slowly across the sky (24.5 Earth days per solar day) and the person is moving 1003 mph around the Earth. All these describe the same events just from different points of view (frames of reference).

First, there are at least 2 geocentric models:

• The old style where everything went around the Earth - with crazy explanations of heavenly bodies moving.
• The EXACT heliocentric model we have as viewed from Earth (being stationary) - MoR

As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?

Geocentricity:  http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

No question the earth stands still.  I'm just questioning the shape of it.

If you love creation, you might be interested in checking out creation.com. They do not compromise the Bible but they would also disagree with geocentrism. You can read many articles on the subject and similar ones. =)

As to whether the Earth is actually moving, we look at stuff like Coriolis Effect, Foucault's Pendulum and an object weighs less on the equator than near the poles. The motion would be soooo smoooth that it would not be felt directly. Basically, what experiments can you do that would show movement (probably some having to do with inertia) preferably on Earth?

Motion is relative. Such observations can still be explained with a stationary Earth, so long as everything does indeed rotate around us. You can choose anything to be stationary, and as long as a force exists to cause the motion around that object, that object could be stationary.

Quote from: Alexandra1973 on October 20, 2015, 04:20:31 PM

Geocentricity:  http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

No question the earth stands still.  I'm just questioning the shape of it.

If you love creation, you might be interested in checking out creation.com. They do not compromise the Bible but they would also disagree with geocentrism. You can read many articles on the subject and similar ones. =)

A) At least you believe the Earth is a sphere. That gets rid of 99% of the complications the Flat Earth believers have to content with (viewing the South Celestial Pole and boat travel time/distances).

B) There are still problems with the Earth being stationary.

• Ocean currents and hurricanes come to mind. What causes MILLIONS of tons of water to circulate in opposite directions in different hemispheres.
• Foucault's Pendulum. Why does it move?
• Possible weight differences between an object at the N. Pole and equator (I don't know if this has been done).

These would be some indicators that the Earth is moving.

Geocentricity:  http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/geocentricity.html

I also believe in the Bible. I believe the Theory of Evolution is false. But people try to put a spin on things that are not necessarily true.

If the universe IS huge, that does not diminish our importance in the slightest. We are the ONLY thing alive in the whole universe. Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life". This has not been shown anywhere in nature or in laboratory. THE Biological Law is that everything came from a previous living thing - without exception. Biblically, we come from a LIVING God - life is the breath of God.

If God did not create the heavens on the 4th day, nothing would change. "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players" - Shakespeare. The heavens are a fancy backdrop.

So, I have no problem with heliocentric models.

We are the ONLY thing alive in the whole universe.

Evolutionists still have to prove the foundation of biological evolution - that "Life can come from non-Life".

That has absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

There are still problems with the Earth being stationary.
Ocean currents and hurricanes come to mind. What causes MILLIONS of tons of water to circulate in opposite directions in different hemispheres.
Foucault's Pendulum. Why does it move?
Possible weight differences between an object at the N. Pole and equator (I don't know if this has been done).

The first two don't require the Earth to move, so long as something around the Earth moves. The details of this in a working model will take a lot to get into (possible but there's a lot of framework to build up before it can be explained, which'll bore anyone reading the thread: I have an open invitation to readers to PM me if they want the details of the only working FE model) but if viewed purely hypothetically it's clear. Scientifically there is no difference whether we take the Earth as stationary, or take some other source as stationary, so long as there is an explanation for the force.
Weight differences are answerable too. On a FE it's simpler, as the force you call gravity would be different. I can only wish luck to geocentric REers.

This is a rare post of mine, you can probably find a lot of REers who'll agree with at least a couple of points. That never happens, savor it.

A few formulas of interest.


CURVATURE

C = R(1 - cos[s/(2R)]) - angle measured in radians


R = 6378,164 km

s = distance



VISUAL OBSTACLE




BD = (R + h)/{[2Rh + h²]^1/2(sin s/R)(1/R) + cos s/R} - R


BD = visual obstacle

h = altitude of observer



To obtain the formula for the maximum difference of level between two points, we simply modify the first equation:






As an example, let us use the distance in the Columbus' journal, 90 km: