The big problem : The rectilineator isn't as rigid as it looks.
I know it, but like always you somehow missed my point.
I have never claimed it to be correct or anything, simply stating that Teed put a lot of effort into a clever device that globers did not need, because their magic pendulum had swung and the answer was ''YES'' the earth is a sphere
I fail to see you point.
The thing that flat earthers cannot comprehend is just how small the curvature really is.
That is dishonest of you !
Globers have claimed for very long to see a curve from an airplane window or the high mountains or even Burj Khalifa !!!
I have told you that before, but you seem to ignore that.
You have "told me" lots of things without any basis before, so what? What about a little justification for your claims.
If any group did not understand how small the curvature is, it must have been your average glober not flatearthers.
Most flatearthers undertsand the 8 inches per mile squared from the very beginning.....
No most flat earthers completely misunderstand the "8 inches per mile squared" and think it gives the height of the bulge and the hieight hidden.
The "8 inches per mile squared" is nothing more than the amount a distant point i lower that the "local horizontal".
You, yourself made the same error in
Re: Eclipse 21.08.17 will debunk the Globe « Reply #1183 on: September 13, 2017, 07:01:03 AM ».
The same problem crops up over and over, with flat earthers claiming, say, that over 30 miles 600 feet should be hidden with no allowance made for viewing height.
The viewing height is rarely less than 10 feet above the water level. Even that height brings the hidden height down to 455 feet and
further investigation often shows that the viewing height was really about 30 feet.
you should ask the average glober on the streets about that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Probably true, sumply because most people don't give the matter much thought. They justs go about their life accepting the "status quo".
That is probably, as has been stated by Neil Degrasse Tyson and many here at least partly due to the failure of "modern education" not teaching "how to think".
And my answer to your photographic evidence is my logic !!
The default situation is we can see far away in the distance...way further than the supposed curvature line.
Well, it's up to you to prove that is the "default case" then! It is complicated by most of these photographs being over water, where there is often a big difference between the water temperature and the general air temperature.
The amount of moisture in the air , temperature differences etc. are responsible for obscuring or distorting what can be seen on a good day with all sorts of strange results.
Your logic is :
There is a curvature line and beyond it buildings, ships will gradually dissapear over the curvature (bottom first)
When people do see far over the curvature some atmospheric magic is responsible for that.
Magic because some images rise for hundreds of meters to allign with the horizon perfectly.
I guess so do "align with the horizon perfectly" and some appear even high above the horizon as in
Really? You don't believe in mirages!
You don't accept mirages - read: MIRAGES IN FINLAND, You can observe shifting horizons, eerie ships and other mirages along the Finnish coastline.
Neither does anyone doubt that we sometimes see quite large ships well above the water nor sailing boats flying.
No, seeing that sort of thing a few times is evidence of nothing more than uncommon optical effects and they have been observed for centuries,
Here is a very good example of the flip flopping magic you support
No it's not - and I thought that YOU were the expert. A
Professor once said to me (just to "cheer me up" when entering an exam room)
"Do you know the definition of an 'expert'?", of course, I didn't, so he said "The 'ex' is the unknown you're trying to find and the 'spurt is a 'little drip under pressure'!".
Well, dutchy, you are beginning to sound like that 'spurt'!
, or it shows reality albite with a bit distortion because of the distances :
| | This is what can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day !!!! |
No amount of refractional magic can make this fit into your globe model.
Give me a photo of what "
can be seen more than 30 miles away on a good day" and I won't need any "refractional magic". Look at your photos a bit more critically!
I wouldn't even waste my time calculating hidden heights etc, etc for a photo like that!
Metabunk, Mick West is a bit smarter than I, so he might.
Now go and find some photos with a sharp horizon, maybe this sort of thing:
Toronto 30 miles across Lake Ontario. The Lewiston GardenFest Comes to a Close, Posted on July 16, 2014 | | Toronto across Lake Ontario On a clear day, which it was, you can see Toronto across Lake Ontario from Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario (it's only about 30 miles or 50 km). A Great Black-backed Gull (Larus marinus) is flying close to shore. |
You might wonder why so many posted photos show so much refraction, looming and even mirage effects. I think that there are two solid reasons: