ok, so there you go - i seem to be 'fixated on the fact that the earth is flat'
That isn't a fact.
this is the flat earth society web page. where are all the flat earthers.
There are some, but they don't seem to like discussing with other FEers, probably because they will likely end up arguing against them.
This is a great example of that.
Some FEers will try to claim that objects don't disappear from the bottom up, and instead they just get smaller until you can't see them, but you can zoom in to reveal them.
Others will claim they do disappear from the bottom up, due to bendy light or magical perspective, or all sorts of things.
There are currently 2 main active FEers in this section of the forum.
One of them is claiming perspective and vanishing point just somehow cause a horizon to appear and obscure the bottom of objects.
The other is claiming there is a magical parabola which somehow limits your vision.
And now we have you claiming that it doesn't actually disappear from the bottom up.
as well i see that the curvature of 8 inches per mile squared is missing.
Care to provide the calculations and evidence for that missing curvature? Especially with regards to accounting for observer height and refraction?
look up math proof of globe earth and then you vcan have some evidence based flat earth vids.
I don't normally accuse people of being alts, but you sure are sounding like faded mike.
First coming in with this video which has been refuted several times, complaining that there are too many REers, the repeatedly claim of curvature missing, but what really tipped it was these last 2 points regarding search engines and these suggested videos.
If not, how about instead of telling us to look them up, you provide a link and describe how they show Earth is flat?
so no, i am not trying to prop up flat eath. i believe it has a good case
Then why don't you try to make the case?
Why don't you try addressing the multitude of issues with the FE that means it doesn't match reality?
which is more common to see, closer to flat or closer to the theorized curveture
Yep, you sure sound like faded mike.
In my experience, the fact we have a horizon at all, shows there is curvature.
The nature of objects near or beyond the horizon shows there is curvature.
The observed position of celestial objects shows there is curvature.
So to me it isn't a question of flat or round, it is a question of what is the radius.
You would be better off claiming Earth is larger than people think it is than claiming it is flat.
If you care to investigate, there is another video with the same baot
Why not focus on this boat?
We can see that the hull is obscured by the water.
It isn't simply getting blurred out by a mirage or the like.
What is happening to it?
Ok, so they say that the boat bottom part is being distorted and a smaller and smaller part of the top is being stretched down taking place of the whole boat. can you describe how this comes into play in the images you posted here.
They say that the ratio remains constants, and that if you were able to see through the distorted region, the boat would be visible above the horizon.
They aren't claiming the top is being stretched, they are saying there is a mirror line that is mirroring the top portion.
Just after 1 minute it, they begin with this claim of a constant proportion, first dividing it into thirds, and then dividing the top third in half to claim it is 1/6th, which they claim it remains.
But, taking a screenshot for the 1/3rd (at 1080p, not the native 720 of that video) we see the orange line at the top is at y=130 px, the purple line for the top 3rd is at 424 px, and the bottom line is at 1002. Not quite a 1:3 ratio. Instead it is 1:2.97.
They even show 3 presumably equally sized boxes to show this.
Here they are side by side:
Why is one so much smaller?
It isn't hard to draw boxes making sure they are the same size.
Then for the extra half, they draw in a new line. The line is drawn at y=266 px. That isn't a 1:2 ratio. That is a 1:2.16 ratio.
And if we look we can see this is how they have lined it up (I have extended the orange line, and added a purple line):
We see the orange line is below the crossing point of the mast.
The purple line I have drawn is at y=255 px.
They use these inaccuracies to claim that the top of the mast represents 1/6th of the overall height.
If you use their orange line it is actually a ratio of ~1:6.4. If you use the crossing point I have highlighted, it is ~1:7.0
So at this point, the mast takes up significantly less than 1/6th of the the overall height. (And they used the height to the mirror line, not the water line.
Then just before 4 minutes, they repeat the exercise.
Now the orange line is at 215, the "3rd" is at 456, and the mirror line is at 885, and the cross point of the mast, which they haven't highlighted, is at 324.
That means instead of a 1:2 ratio, they have a ~1:2.3 ratio.
And now, the top box they provide is smaller than the region they are putting it in, not touching either line, while for the lower portion, they are overlapping the lines, and the lower boxes are overlapping, but at least they are roughly the same size now.
The mast is now at a ratio of ~1:3.9
i.e. it has dropped from 1:7.0 to 1:3.9
Or alternatively, the top has gone from taking up 14% to taking up 26%.
But they boldly proclaim that the ratio remains the same.
What is observed instead is that the ship appears to be sinking.
In short, the video needs to blatantly lie to try and prop up a flat Earth.
it is my understanding that this effect does not continue inaccordance with theorized curvature. leading me to believe undesrcibed refaction tyope effect.
Do you mean the measured curvature where you ignore refraction? If so, yes ignoring refraction will give incorrect results. Especially for things so close to the water.
If you mean while taking into account the well described effects of refraction, then care to provide any evidence or examples?