Please explain the horizon

Any datum that contradicts a hypothesis disproves it, no? So please to explain the horizon.

An observer whose eyes are 1.6m above sea level can see (roughly) 4.5km before objects disappear behind what can only be a curvature of the surface in between. This observed curvature is (again, roughly) constant in every direction you look. North, South, East, West. You can confirm this yourself easily.

So far these observations can be explained by either a) a sphere or b) a convex, contact lens-like surface.

But: this equal curvature can and has been observed throughout history on all points of the Earth that permit it: on every beach, every island, every 'flat' piece of prairie. Every point on a surface cannot appear to be at the 'center' of curvature, unless it's a sphere or damned close to it.

The amount of curvature observed and the proven, provable distances between well-known places can only be accounted for by a sphere. Just try to make a geometric figure that exhibits all of these characteristics and is not a sphere. I will give a million dollars to the first who does this.

Essentially, I am saying this: Flat Earth Hypothesis can only be believed by throwing away easily observed facts which contradict it.

Essentially, I am saying this: Flat Earth Hypothesis can only be believed by throwing away easily observed facts which contradict it.

Throwing away some and relegating others to the "conspiracy" pile.

Any datum that contradicts a hypothesis disproves it, no?

No.

Well? Explain the horizon effect in terms of a flat earth.

The important thing to remember is that the only thing you can be sure of when observing the horizon is that that's as far as you can see.  That is, you can't make any conclusions as to why it's as far as you can see.  You can assume the Earth is round, and that would explain why that's as far as you can see, or you can assume that it is flat and that there is some other explanation -- such as limited visibility -- for the, well, limited visibility.

Getting tired of repeating the tabletop explaination?  I'll reiterate as best I can.

Your visual limit is radial, that is to say, the limit you can see is in any direction.  X miles straight forward, X miles at 1 degree from straight forward, X miles at 20 degrees from straight forward and so on.

What does this mean?  You see X miles in any direction, and if you line up X mile lines as you move your bearing from right to left, you begin to form a circle.  The edge of that circle would not appear as a straight line unless it were extremely far away.  It would still have a curve to it, but it would be less noticable.

This observable curve at the horizon is generally seen on water, but the same could go for any plain, flat area.  Becayse the curve of the earth isn't an extreme one, you can't just tell from mountains on either side of your horizon that there is a real curve, so we can only observe the edge of a circle or a curved horizon.  Either model allows for this.

Though admittedly, the FE theory certainly creates optics questions.

you can't make any conclusions as to why it's as far as you can see.

What rubbish is this? If you don't form conclusions from a set of observations you ain't doing science, you're just wanking off. If you are getting at some juvenile metaphysical attack on the Principle of Induction, there are better ways to go about it.

Even limiting to personal experience, I have:

a) seen the horizon effect (i.e. the bottom of the ship occluded before the top), at magnification, on 3 continents, in both hemispheres, in all directions.

b) observed the left-right curvature of the horizon from 10km in the air, again in all directions.

c) observed and recorded the circular paths of stars centered on Polaris in the North and Sigma Octanis in the South.

d) observed that stars (you know, the little bright things that hang way above us?) disappear over the horizon as you move North to South and vice-versa, at a rate relative to speed.

The least and most robust explanation is that we live on a rotating, curved surface.

And you come here talking about table-tops? You've got it the wrong way round, kids. Observations first, then a hypothesis that covers all facts, doesn't contradict any, and can make new predictions.

You must be able to explain each and every observation within the framework of one hypothesis. Posulating individual explanations for individual observations is just wanking off.

No takers, then? Right. Then we shall conclude:

This "flat earth" hypothesis is a load of bollocks. There is only one observation it rests on (i.e. that the earth sometimes appears flat to a person who is not paying attention). Every other observation contradicts it.

Glad we could clear that up.

No takers, then? Right. Then we shall conclude:

This "flat earth" hypothesis is a load of bollocks.

Oops, this just lost you all credibility. Someone "taking" something or not "taking" something is not indicative of whether or not they can. Have some patience.

Oops, this just lost you all credibility. Someone "taking" something or not "taking" something is not indicative of whether or not they can. Have some patience.

If you can't answer him, his hand will win. And the FE model, or a part of it, has been disproven yet again.

...is not indicative of whether or not they can. Have some patience.

Ah. Silly me to suppose that, over the course of a week, anyone would post or link to a good rebuttal or even one shred of evidence that contradicts the round earth. On the flat earth forum hosted on theflatearthsociety.org.

That's all it takes, kids, that's how science works. Really low bar. Go ahead. One shred. If there is one, I promise to help you follow it up. That also is how science works.

If you have none besides "it looks flat from here, and I've never traveled, and don't know anything about basic naked-eye astronomy", then it is you who have no credibility whatsoever.

An observer whose eyes are 1.6m above sea level can see (roughly) 4.5km before objects disappear behind what can only be a curvature of the surface in between. This observed curvature is (again, roughly) constant in every direction you look. North, South, East, West. You can confirm this yourself easily.

From what I can tell, your argument here is essentially the old "why does a ships hull disappear before the mast."
A couple of explanations have been proposed on this forum, although you'll have to look for the threads. You also might want to read Samuel Rowbotham's explanation, from his book Earth: Not a globe.

You are being willfully ignorant. I gave a set of observations. Either refute the entire set or provide contradictory evidence.

Move 1000km North to South, or vice-versa. Look up at night. Note that new stars appear in one direction and old, familiar ones disappear in the other.

As for Rowbotham's ideas, note that I said "at magnification" w/r/t boats. Furthermore, that nutter can't do math.

Again, the onus is on you to find just one observation that contradicts the accepted theory. So far I have heard none, only inane guesses that "explain" only a particular observation or another in terms of a "flat earth".

That is called "begging the question".

The Coriolis force manifests itself in a rotating frame of reference and causes moving objects to pushed in a direction perpendicular to the direction of motion. This is why Hurricanes are Spiral shaped, and always move anticlockwise in the Northern Hemisphere, and Clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere. The magnitude of the Coriolis force on a sphere rotating about an axis is related to the distance from the equator.
    There is no Coriolis force at the equator, and the magnitude reaches a maximum at the north AND south poles. This is a characteristic property of motion on a rotating sphere, and can be demonstrated (hint: ask your physics teacher). Thus, the earth is a rotating sphere.

QED

I love n00bs.

Are you saying I'm wrong, or just that you love me?

TheEngineer, you could at least make some effort to contest what I said, "i love n00bs" does not constitute a rebuttal. Please explain how the Coriolis force could manifest itself on a flat earth, knowing that the magnitude is proportional to  sin L , where L is the Latitudinal coordinate in degrees.

TheEngineer, you could at least make some effort to contest what I said, "i love n00bs" does not constitute a rebuttal. Please explain how the Coriolis force could manifest itself on a flat earth, knowing that the magnitude is proportional to  sin L , where L is the Latitudinal coordinate in degrees.

Have you ever observed the coriolis force? Who's to say that it exists at all? Couldn't circular storms be caused by some other mechanism? I think Erasmus posed one based on the heating of the atmosphere by sun in a thread a while back.

I love n00bs.

Nowadays that word has no meaning, it used to be newb, referring to someone as a 'newby' to the situation. Someone has refined it to n00b/noob, people use this refined word as an insult which is not what the original word intended.

So my suggestions are, go and play a game in which you will feel comfortable calling other people 'n00bs' as it is pretty much an anti-social thing in society, or just shut up.

I prefer No. 2 suggestion.

Quote from: "Seriously"

TheEngineer, you could at least make some effort to contest what I said, "i love n00bs" does not constitute a rebuttal. Please explain how the Coriolis force could manifest itself on a flat earth, knowing that the magnitude is proportional to  sin L , where L is the Latitudinal coordinate in degrees.

Have you ever observed the coriolis force? Who's to say that it exists at all? Couldn't circular storms be caused by some other mechanism? I think Erasmus posed one based on the heating of the atmosphere by sun in a thread a while back.

Coriolis effect does not only affect storm, it effects clouds etc etc.

Have you ever observed the coriolis force? Who's to say that it exists at all? Couldn't circular storms be caused by some other mechanism? I think Erasmus posed one based on the heating of the atmosphere by sun in a thread a while back.

The coriolis force is a result of movement in a rotating frame of reference, along with centrifugal force.

imagine you and another guy are standing at opposite sides of a circle. That circle is rotating with some angular velocity. From your point of view, you are stationary, as is the other guy. Now imagine throwing a ball to the other guy, imagine what path the ball would take.

From an observers point of view, the ball would move in a straight line, but from your point of view, the ball would appear to be pulled to the right (or left, depending on whether you were rotating anti-clockwise/clockwise)

The motion observed from your frame of reference can be described by the coriolis force. This is why Hurricanes are spiral shaped.

Furthermore, to expand on my previous point, the magnitude of the force increases as you approach the centre of the rotating circle. If you were standing on a flat circle, it would increase linearly. If you were standing on a sphere, it would increase proportionally to sin L.

The equator of a sphere is 0 degrees, sin 0 = 0
the poles are 90 degrees, sin 90 = 1 => the maximum value

The scenario observed on earth is PRECISELY consistant with a rotating sphere, and NOT with a rotating circle.

QED, bitches

Coriolis effect does not only affect storm, it effects clouds etc etc.

Fine. Show me how I can observe Coriolis force on the Earth by doing an experiment that doesn't require a plane ticket or expensive equipment.

Quote from: "skeptical scientist"

Have you ever observed the coriolis force? Who's to say that it exists at all? Couldn't circular storms be caused by some other mechanism? I think Erasmus posed one based on the heating of the atmosphere by sun in a thread a while back.

The coriolis force is a result of movement in a rotating frame of reference, along with centrifugal force.
*snip*
QED, bitches

You seem to have misunderstood me, so let me rephrase. Who is to say that Coriolis force on the Earth exists at all? I accept that it is a perfectly apparent term when deriving newton's laws in a rotating coordinate system, just like centrifugal force, and so if the Earth is in fact a sphere, it would be present, and if you can determine its presence, that's good evidence that the earth is indeed a sphere. But how can you actually show that Coriolis force is present on the Earth?

Who is to say that Coriolis force on the Earth exists at all? I accept that it is a perfectly apparent term when deriving newton's laws in a rotating coordinate system, just like centrifugal force, and so if the Earth is in fact a sphere, it would be present, and if you can determine its presence, that's good evidence that the earth is indeed a sphere. But how can you actually show that Coriolis force is present on the Earth?

Em, yes.
 Watch a weather report about hurricanes.

The Coriolis force also affects projectiles, for example bullets/missiles over a long enough range. Over a range of about a kilometre, an object travelling at 100m/s will be deflected by approximately 0.5m to the right(NH) or left (SH).

Note: This is NOT caused by wind, because the force/direction of the wind is not constant. The value for this effect is.

If you want a demonstration, join the army.

Em, yes.
 Watch a weather report about hurricanes.

I believe I mentioned that Erasmus already had an alternative explanation for hurricanes and other circling winds. I can't seem to find it right now, but perhaps he'd be so kind as to step in with a link.

The Coriolis force also affects projectiles, for example bullets/missiles over a long enough range. Over a range of about a kilometre, an object travelling at 100m/s will be deflected by approximately 0.5m to the right(NH) or left (SH).

Note: This is NOT caused by wind, because the force/direction of the wind is not constant. The value for this effect is.

If you want a demonstration, join the army.

I'm not about to get shot in Iraq simply in order to make detailed analyses of artillery trajectories.

Is there an experiment I can perform that doesn't involve significant cash outlays or getting shot?

Is there an experiment I can perform that doesn't involve significant cash outlays or getting shot?

I don't think Coriolis effect caused by earth rotation is strong enough to be easly measured in a homemade experiment.
If you are desperated enough you can try Foucault pendulum.

You could just read a physics textbook...

Oh, wait, those are all edited by the government to cover up the conspiracy

TheEngineer, you could at least make some effort to contest what I said, "i love n00bs" does not constitute a rebuttal.

It was not meant to be a rebuttal, but a statement.  

The most annoying thing about new RE'ers is their 'I'm right, you're wrong, anything I say is proof of the shape of the earth, QED.' mentality, along with their lack of patience.

Ex.
Coriolis force = round earth, QED.
The earth would travel faster than the speed of light, therefore, the        earth is round.
Gravity is exactly the same thing as the electromagnetic force, therefore the earth is round, QED.
I waited 6 minutes for an answer, no one did, therefore, I win, you conceed the point, you have no answer, I stumped the FES and now the site can be shut down.

It gets very annoying.

That's awfully hypocritical of you.

That's awfully hypocritical of you.

How so?