No one knows <Side perspective>_It's the key

Observations and notes:

The atmoplane can not be disregarded until REers fully consider FET data.  Do not turn your backs on what is real.

Those of us that have crossed Lake Pontchartrain bridge while observing the surroundings realize there is more to FET after crossing it than before.  Study bridge building if you want to understand arcs of construction.

Birds are more advanced than humans and have been around much longer.  FET has been around much longer than RET and to this day defines Earth shape.

All will one day again be FET. That may sound too general of a statement and if it does, you have not studied FET. Get to it.     

The atmoplane can not be disregarded until REers fully consider FET data.

What data?
I am yet to see anything indicating a flat Earth.

Do not turn your backs on what is real.

You have addressed this to the wrong group. You want to address that to the FEers that turn their backs on the reality of a round Earth.

Those of us that have crossed Lake Pontchartrain bridge while observing the surroundings realize there is more to FET after crossing it than before.

Is that because you realise you need to invent loads of nonsense to try and prop up RE?

The rational people would realise Earth isn't flat.

FET has been around much longer than RET and to this day defines Earth shape.

The original FE idea has more in common with modern RE than modern FE.
Regadless, it being around for longer doesn't magically make it correct.
This is something which should make anyone hesitant to even think of adopting a FE view.

FE was around first and ancient people realised it was wrong, discarding it favour of a RE, which can actually explain the world.
And now the vast majority of people accept a RE, and a RE model is used for any serious project which requires large distances.
FE doesn't define the shape of Earth, it fails repeatedly.

All will one day again be FET. That may sound too general of a statement and if it does, you have not studied FET. Get to it.     

Only in your dreams. If you truly think that is true then you clearly haven't studied FE models, RET or reality.

Quote from: gotham on September 25, 2018, 01:09:23 PM

The atmoplane can not be disregarded until REers fully consider FET data.

What data?
I am yet to see anything indicating a flat Earth.

Data does not exist until it has been viewed by you?

Observations and notes:

The atmoplane can not be disregarded until REers fully consider FET data.  Do not turn your backs on what is real.

Well, where is all this "FET data" so that we might avoid turning our backs on what you claim real.

Those of us that have crossed Lake Pontchartrain bridge while observing the surroundings realize there is more to FET after crossing it than before.  Study bridge building if you want to understand arcs of construction.

But take a far view of a long structure like the Power Lines across Lake Pontchartrain. Then you can really see the curve on the surface of the water.

The horizon is about 12 km (the 7.7 miles), the tall pylon about 26 km (the 15.9 miles) and the nearest pylon at 2.9 km (1.8 miles) from the camera.

Birds are more advanced than humans and have been around much longer.  FET has been around much longer than RET and to this day defines Earth shape.

So you say and certainly the ancient civilisations did think the earth was flat but nothing like the modern version of "FET".
Those early flat earth models did not have the sun, moon and stars nearby and circling above the earth but
had distant sun, moon and stars the actually rose from (or behind) the horizon and set into (or behind) the horizon.

All will one day again be FET. That may sound too general of a statement and if it does, you have not studied FET. Get to it.     

I've studied what I can find of FET and I'm afraid it does not fit the real world that I live in so please tell us where we can find any flat earth "theory" that "works".

Data does not exist until it has been viewed by you?

No, but I can't disregard it until I have seen it.

Observations and notes:

The atmoplane can not be disregarded until REers fully consider FET data.  Do not turn your backs on what is real.

Those of us that have crossed Lake Pontchartrain bridge while observing the surroundings realize there is more to FET after crossing it than before.  Study bridge building if you want to understand arcs of construction.   

Can't speak to bridge building, but take for example the Stanford Linear Accelerator, a two mile long structure that was engineered and constructed to the finest of tolerances. As part of the ongoing LiCAS = Linear Collider Alignment and Survey project, newer systems have been developed to better account for earth's curvature when building such structures.

"HYDROSTATIC LEVELLING SYSTEM (HLS)
Since the accelerator could follow the curvature of the earth and the wire has limitations as height reference because of the sag, a drift-free HLS was developed."

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/048.PDF

Quote from: Danang on September 24, 2018, 03:01:46 AM

"Light does not have wings."

>> So doesn't a board. But both can fly by just speeding.

"It is incapable of aerodynamic lift.
Why would the light bend up?"

>> if you agreed with UA, everything would be clear. Even zero altitude surface (not to mention horizon) will be look like staying higher than it "should be".

A bird doesn’t fly by speeding alone. It needs wings to create lift. By your statement, you suggest one could throw a rock and make it fly or that a kestrel is unable to hover looking for prey.

Bird's wings ain't in the move all the time. What maintains the altitude while the wings are inactive for a while is: the Speed. No Bernoulli's principle is taken into consideration.

If a rock is launced horizontally by very high speed, it will go up to some extence.
It is similar to soccer ball, speed boat, car etc.
Those are not about wings -- although wings does have contribution for a lift.

Bird's wings ain't in the move all the time. What maintains the altitude while the wings are inactive for a while

Aerodynamics. The wings are still moving relative to the air.

Photons do not experience aerodynamic forces.

If a rock is launched horizontally by very high speed, it will go up to some extence.

No it wont. It will fall. The only way to have it appear to go up is to have it go faster than orbital velocity.

Stop asserting nonsense which has never been observed.

"If the light is magically bending upwards to block the view of a distant object, everything would appear lower."

The distant object ain't visible because either the light hits the surface or goes above the eyes. So you need to either get closer to the object or get higher altitude.

I didn't speak about short distance object. The more distance the smaller scale of the difference between eyes & the object altitude.
What eyes receive is not the light from exact direction towards the object physically, but some less angle down from the object.

"Photons do not experience aerodynamic forces."

>> They do, but most of the light's matters escape from atmoplane due to much smaller size and much higher speed. But the influence of UA does exist.

If you say refraction, that supports UA. Congrats 

Quote from: gotham on September 25, 2018, 01:09:23 PM

Observations and notes:

The atmoplane can not be disregarded until REers fully consider FET data.  Do not turn your backs on what is real.

Those of us that have crossed Lake Pontchartrain bridge while observing the surroundings realize there is more to FET after crossing it than before.  Study bridge building if you want to understand arcs of construction.   

Can't speak to bridge building, but take for example the Stanford Linear Accelerator, a two mile long structure that was engineered and constructed to the finest of tolerances. As part of the ongoing LiCAS = Linear Collider Alignment and Survey project, newer systems have been developed to better account for earth's curvature when building such structures.

"HYDROSTATIC LEVELLING SYSTEM (HLS)
Since the accelerator could follow the curvature of the earth and the wire has limitations as height reference because of the sag, a drift-free HLS was developed."

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C04100411/papers/048.PDF

And a similar situation in:

Quote from: dutchy on September 12, 2017, 07:50:48 AM

To have absolute proof of the curvature through a physicall structure would be awesome.
That it is absent today is a smoking gun in favour of flat and concave earth !
. . . . . . . . .
We are absolutely sure that the amount of supposed curvature given in the current model is false !!

You might not like the answer, but the plain simple fact is that apart from a relatively few flat earthers nobody questions the fact that the earth is a Globe.

But, while few question it, some might forget the earth's being a Globe to their peril, as in this little very relevant anecdote:

Quote

There was one particularly amusing part of this bomb test experiment involving a dozen two-mile-long vacuum pipe lines necessary to accurately view the device from far enough away to save the recording equipment from the expected blast.

“When six of us young physicists arrived in Bikini several months before the test, but after an immense effort by thousands working for the contractor Holmes and Narver, we found that the gamma rays from a radioactive test source wouldn’t pass through the vacuum pipelines for a distance of two miles.”

After a few of the “juvenile young scientists” straightened one pipe line using a special telescope, Colgate recalls being awakened that night by another still younger engineer, who showed him the corrections.

“I took one look, calculated the geometry, and said out loud so everyone in the tent could hear, ‘Oh my God, they forgot that the earth is round!’ ” he said.

For gamma rays to get through, the pipes had to be straight, not level with the ground. The next day at a management meeting, Colgate reassured everyone that there would be no recriminations, but at the end he joked,

“The one thing we young scientists would like is a small correction . . . . . . ”

From: Meet Dr. Stirling Colgate, Iconic Tech President

Yes, the 2 miles of carefully "levelled" pipe was "locally levelled", but not straight. In 2 miles there is a "bulge" of 8 inches. Not much, but enough to stop the gamma rays from reaching the target.

In another case the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO - one at Caltech) has two 4 km long arms. These arms are vacuum tubes that have to be perfectly straight and at 90° at the observatory.
As a result, the far ends are 1.26 m higher than the observatory end.
One Flat Earth Society member did quote this as evidence in Doesn't LIGO prove round earth? « on: February 18, 2017, 08:58:28 AM »
But it is hardly something to be trotted out as Globe evidence. It is just built into the project as a matter of course.

All the evidence is out there and is simply applied where needed.

"Photons do not experience aerodynamic forces."

>> They do,

Incorrect!
Light is slowed a little by air but that is not due to any aerodynamic force.
The more dense the air the greater the "slowing down" and this is the cause of refraction.

If you say refraction, that supports UA. Congrats 

Incorrect!
Refraction is not caused (directly) by either gravity or UA. As stated above refraction is due to the air density varying with elevation.

Gravity (or UA) can bend light slightly but on earth that is quite negligible. Here is a rough estimate.
Light from the horizon 30 km away would take about 10μs to reach your location.
In that 10μs, assuming UA, your flat earth would have moved up (1/2) × 9.81 × (10 × 10^-6)² m or roughly (1/20,000,000) metre!
Gravity (or UA) does not significantly bend light.

The distant object ain't visible because either the light hits the surface or goes above the eyes.

This does not address the point made.
You claimed that light bending would make objects appear higher, but for your nonsense to work they need to appear lower.

"Photons do not experience aerodynamic forces."
>> They do

Prove it.
As they are symmetric point particles, the only possible force that could be exerted is that to slow them down. For any other aerodynamic force to exist, there is nothing to give it any directionality. How does a point particle experience lift?

If you say refraction, that supports UA. Congrats 

No, refraction is a well known property of light based upon the refractive index. It occurs the same regardless of the orientation of the system and thus does not support UA in any way.
That observed from the atmosphere is massive compared to that expected from gravity.

Interesting video 

To paraphrase: The sea is flat, but appears round. This is due to the limit of sight, refraction / reflection, and visibility.

A few problems.

Side perspective isn't curved. On the side, its travelling away at 45 degrees. Eye level still remains the same and the top and bottom do move closer as it gets farther away, but this is still in straight lines. Then until the bottom starts to noticeable disappear as it goes over the curve. To negate limit of eyesight, visibility, and refraction - use a powerful telescope - just to see ships going over the physical earth curvature in better detail.

Interesting video 

To paraphrase: The sea is flat, but appears round. This is due to the limit of sight, refraction / reflection, and visibility.

A few problems.

Side perspective isn't curved. On the side, its travelling away at 45 degrees. Eye level still remains the same and the top and bottom do move closer as it gets farther away, but this is still in straight lines. Then until the bottom starts to noticeable disappear as it goes over the curve. To negate limit of eyesight, visibility, and refraction - use a powerful telescope - just to see ships going over the physical earth curvature in better detail.

Side perspective is curved. So, we can feel the depth of the world.
Here's the evidence.

Data does not exist until it has been viewed by you?

I know you aren't used to dealing with a behemoth of a poster such as myself, but as the most renowned RET poster I just cannot stand by and let comments like this lie.

You offer very little on this forum with many low quality posts.

Normally I wouldn't bother with such a low level of posting as it is inherently against the forums rules but it seems no one else has taken you to task on the matter.

I must insist that if you are to reply to someone it is a reply consisting of a higher quality and a reply which actually adds to the debate and moves it forward.

Next time I frequent this site, ensure you are complying with the sites rules.

As for the debate at hand, please explain which data you believe to support the FET, whilst the data will exist regardless of others seeing it, if you aim to move a debate forward it is preferable that such data is shared.

Thank you and good day.

Side perspective is curved. So, we can feel the depth of the world.

No, perspective is curved simply because that is what the trig functions indicate and because light travels in straight lines.
It doesn't magically make the ocean appear curved.

Note that this sidewise perspective is only curved FROM THE SIDE!
From the front, it is still straight, meaning it doesn't magically make a hypothetical FE appear curved.

Thanks Zorbakim, but still no evidence, still no cigar.

Those side curves only occur if the object  is moving in a constant sideways direction from the observer's perspective. If it were just moving directly back, those lines would be perfectly straight.

What gives us depth perception isn't these curved lines at all. What gives us depth perception is the way most of us see the world through two eyes instead of just one. This principle is in good use with 3d movies. The movie is shot using two separated lenses and the special 3d glasses you wear, enables you to see " depth", even though you're looking at a flat screen.

This is also why using a pair of binoculars enables the user to discern depth, which doesn't occur when using a telescope.

Those side curves only occur if the object  is moving in a constant sideways direction from the observer's perspective. If it were just moving directly back, those lines would be perfectly straight.

Those curves only exist when plotting the angular size as a function of distance.
If it is moving sideways with a constant sideways direction the curve will be completely different.

Yep. Moving sideways and backwards. Those curves are just plotted invisible lines of motion. But, so what? There are lots of naturally occurring invisible curves in nature.

Those side curves only occur if the object  is moving in a constant sideways direction from the observer's perspective. If it were just moving directly back, those lines would be perfectly straight.

No. My argument seems to be already known in the scientific world.
I thought I was the first in the world.
But someone already knew.

No. My argument seems to be already known in the scientific world.
I thought I was the first in the world.
But someone already knew.

Yes, icansciencethat made this really good video showing how the side view perspective works out to be curved.

Spoiler alert: Fast forward to around 9:00+ and he goes on to explain how this actually only works on a globe earth.

No. My argument seems to be already known in the scientific world.

The first part yes. It is simple trig.

a=arctan(h/d) which is approximately h/d if d>>h.

Anyone who actually tries to think about it will realise this.

It is the latter part, that this somehow magically means that flat objects appear curved, that is pure nonsense which is not part of science.

This so-called side perspective is a nonsense: the photograph simply suffers from distorsion due to the camera lenses.
In perspective, there are only straight lines: and when you make a photograph, with a cheap camera, these straight lines always appear as curves. The phenomenon is more accentuated far from the optical centre, as the top of your poles or buildings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_(optics)

If you use a very expensive camera, or a software correction, you restore the correct perspective, which is straight.
Professional cameras can give very good photos of a monument in perspective, without curved lines.

When you look at good photos, taken at distance on the sea, with a camera that compensates the distorsion, you will see actual curves, due to the spherical surface. And, BTW, the curves follow the same direction, while distorsion is always specular (one line bended to one direction and the other bended in the opposite one).

You should invent something more challenging to demonstrate that the sea is flat: this was very easy to de-bunk.
 

This so-called side perspective is a nonsense: the photograph simply suffers from distorsion due to the camera lenses.

No.
Even with standard lenses, the results were the same.
I wrote it on the video.
The lens is irrelevant.
That is a fact known in optical theory.

Quote from: Alien on October 02, 2018, 02:05:27 PM

This so-called side perspective is a nonsense: the photograph simply suffers from distorsion due to the camera lenses.

No.
Even with standard lenses, the results were the same.
I wrote it on the video.
The lens is irrelevant.
That is a fact known in optical theory.

Have you yet looked at your own video from 9:25 onwards?At 10:30, while there is quite a bit of "reflection" (an inferior mirage^[1]), but that ship is certainly not disappearing into any "hazy layer", no way!

But you really should pick an example where there is no inferior mirage to "prove your case".

[1] An inferior mirage:

An inferior mirage is a mirage of an object visible below that object. Usually the mirage is mirrored upside-down as well. Apart from roads and land, inferior mirages can sometimes also be seen over lakes or oceans.

Limits of resolution also play an important role.
If the resolution is only 8 seconds, the building will be blocked.
like in the video below.

Limits of resolution also play an important role.
If the resolution is only 8 seconds, the building will be blocked.
like in the video below.

No. Not like in the video.
It doesn't magically just hide the bottom. It hides each section of the building equally making it just unresolved.
If it did, it would allow you to bring the bottom back into view using a telescope or zoom, but that doesn't happen. Instead you get a clear section still cut off.
It would also mean that your height is irrelevant, but going higher allows you to see more.

So no, that doesn't explain why the bottom of objects are obscured, nor does it explain why some things appear curved.

Stop spouting nonsense, and stop linking to long, useless youtube videos. Make your point here in plain text.

Limits of resolution also play an important role.
If the resolution is only 8 seconds, the building will be blocked.
like in the video below.

Now that I have a chance to watch the video I can comment on it more (at it is a massive waste of time).
Notice the picture you show 10 seconds in?
The gap between the blocks is still quite easy to resolve, all the way up to 40.3 km away. You can easily just move the image of the first over to get a decent idea of what to expect:

You should easily be able to see the lower sections of the building. So why can't you?

Even in the latter ones when you can't resolve it, that is due to the atmosphere causing distortions. But again, that works equally for all sections, not magically more for the bottom. Neither explain why the angle is wrong, why the top of the building is lower than it should be.
You can also see the horizon is much closer as it is not significantly distorted.

If limited resolution or limited visibility through the atmosphere was going to be an issue, you wouldn't have that nice clear horizon. You would have a blur. It would look more like this:

No clear horizon, just a foggy blur until everything is lost.

You then decide to chose 8.25" for no reason other than it coming close to fitting your nonsense.
If you wanted to use the human eye you would want to use 1 minute of arc, no 8.25 seconds.
But they weren't, they were taken with a camera which clearly a very decent angular resolution.

You then just draw a line as if it matches, scaling the building to fit your nonsense while completely ignoring reality.
Notice that the function you are focusing on is linear?
That means twice as much should be obscured at twice the distance.
At 25 km, barely any is obscured. Your angle predicts roughly 1 m, yet almost the entire lower block is missing.
If you were to double this to 50 km, it should double, giving 2 m based upon your angle or ~2 blocks from the first observation.
But what do we see at a significantly lesser distance of 40 km (where less than the 50 km hidden should be hidden)?
We see ~4 blocks hidden.
Notice how that doesn't match your linear function at all? (Also notice how it doesn't match your claimed measured missing distance? So not only are you blatantly lying about how much should be obscured you are also blatantly lying about how much is hidden).
That shows that that is not the reason, and that you are just presenting the data however you please to pretend it works.

The lines you are drawing don't even make sense.
The blue line you plot is meant to be the angular size of the building. That means the red line should be horizontal, as it is the same angle consistently.

Quit with the BS.