Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved

  • 62 Replies
  • 4586 Views
Too much information for one thread?  Or does it show how knowledge leads to knowledge.

Probably another thread that will be largely ignored.  I guess spice up the title.  Who makes who dance…..

Anyway.

I guess the best way to organize this thread is in four parts.

A quick example of refraction.  Old proof the earth is curved. Modern proof the earth is curved.  What to me is the classic proof the earth is curved.

Part one. First refraction. 

Refraction over simplified leads to how much of a distance target can be seen through mirage.  The new well known example is Chicago.

Quote

Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

Flat earther’s ignore certain factors when using the Chicago skyline.  Such as, the pictures used are often from Tower Hill.

Quote
The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

And atmospheric conditions that change the amount of atmospheric refraction will change how much of the Chicago’s skyline that can be seen.  Seen as in the visible length of buildings. 

Quote

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.
“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.
That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.
“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.”  says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage


The fact you need to stand on a 250 foot hill, and the changing visibility of building lengths is strong evidence the earth is curved.    And refraction is a factor that can’t be ignored, and most be factored for. 

If you doubt refraction, do you believe this is a real double decker ship?



Part Two.  Henry Yule Oldham and his take on the Bedford Level experiment.

Quote

In 1901, Henry Yule Oldham, a reader in geography at King's College, Cambridge, reproduced Wallace's results using three poles fixed at equal height above water level. When viewed through a theodolite, the middle pole was found to be about 6 feet (1.8 m) higher than the poles at each end.[10][11] This version of the experiment was taught in schools in England until photographs of the Earth from space became available, and it remains in the syllabus for the Indian Certificate of Secondary Education for 2023.[12][13][14][15]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedford_Level_experiment


Seems reasonable proof the earth is curved.  If you understand refraction, how it’s mitigated. And a reasonable experiment that can be replicated.  I tried to find the original photos.  But could not find them.  This is all the original documentation I could find.

https://ia600902.us.archive.org/35/items/reportofbritisha01scie/reportofbritisha01scie.pdf









Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km







The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote








So.  There you go.

Proofs the earth is curved.  The Chicago skyline.  The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science.  The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube.  And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”.  And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”
« Last Edit: April 02, 2023, 06:59:54 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Quote

Sun over Spitsbergen : the flat Earth Sun orbit!

Jos Leys














« Last Edit: April 12, 2023, 01:04:34 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon



Let's deal with this first.
Let's use some logic.

If you're standing on a supposed globe and looking out to sea, let's say 5 feet eye line and absolute level vision, you would expect the sea to curve down and away from your sight.
The only way you could bring the sea and the atmosphere into level view would be to have only a theoretical line of the horizon at that level point and to do that would mean you have to be looking over a level sea against a distant atmosphere/sky.

It becomes worse for the global idealists when you start to use elevation because elevation and level sight offers a pinpoint view of the sky only and not the sea as a denser background to create a theoretical line.

It's impossible for us to be living on a globe. Impossible.








*

JackBlack

  • 21969
So taking the typical route of refusing to provide any explanation for how this would work on a FE, and instead throwing out the same refuted BS against the RE?

If you're standing on a supposed globe and looking out to sea, let's say 5 feet eye line and absolute level vision, you would expect the sea to curve down and away from your sight.
How many times will you need to be refuted before you stop spouting this nonsense.
Are you saying this as a fact, or as your entirely incorrect and entirely baseless opinion?

Regardless of how high you are, or the radius of Earth, as the surface directly below you is horizontal, perspective DEMANDS that it will initially rise.

The question is how high will it rise before curvature starts dominating, creating a horizon beyond which the surface goes down and is hidden.

So yet agian, your statement is entirely wrong.
What you should say is:
"If you're standing on a supposed globe and looking out to sea, let's say 5 feet eye line and absolute level vision, you would expect the sea to rise up before curving down and away from your sight creating a horizon."

The only way you could bring the sea and the atmosphere into level view would be to have only a theoretical line of the horizon at that level point and to do that would mean you have to be looking over a level sea against a distant atmosphere/sky.
The only way you could keep the RE out of your level view is by having the RE be tiny (less than 10 m wide) or having an artificially restricted FOV, which needs to be tiny for the real round Earth.

Again, the angle of dip is TRIVIAL to calculate.
You could easily do this if you wanted to, and show just how far below level the RE horizon has to appear.
But you choose not to as you know it will show your claim is garbage.
As I have explained many times, to simplify, assume Earth is a perfect sphere, then construct a right angle triangle. One line is the line from your eyes to a point tangent to Earth. The other 2 are from the point tangent to Earth, and from your eye, straight to the centre.
The right angle is at the point tangent to Earth.
Also construct a line going level from your eye, which will be at 90 degrees from straight down.
The angle between that line, and to the point tangent to Earth is the angle of dip to the horizon, the point which will appear highest in your FOV.
Observe that the angle at your eye in the right triangle is 90 degrees minus the angle of dip to the horizon.
Observe that the angle at the centre of the right triangle is 90 degrees minus the angle at your eye, which means it is the angle of dip.
Observe that the length of the hypotenuse is the radius of Earth plus your height.
Observe that the length of the side of the triangle which isn't the hypotenuse and is adjacent to the angle at the centre, is the radius of Earth.
This means the angle at the centre (the angle of dip to the horizon) is given by arccos(r/(r+h)).

Again, this is not hard to do.
Putting in some numbers, such as a 2 m high observer on a 6371 km Earth gives an angle of 0.05 degrees.

That means in order to not see the round Earth through your level view, you need a FOV less than 0.1 degrees wide, and it needs to be aligned very accurately.

As a comparison, a standard pin (the long part, not the head) has a diameter of roughly 0.5 mm. To have this be as small as that FOV, it would need to be viewed from a distance of 63 cm.

It becomes worse for the global idealists when you start to use elevation because elevation and level sight offers a pinpoint view of the sky only and not the sea as a denser background to create a theoretical line.
Quite the opposite.
It gets even better, where as you change your elevation, the distance to the horizon and the angle of dip to the horizon change, just like you expect on a RE.
Unless you have something to create that pinpoint view (and it really does need to be pinpoint), you need to get very high to block out Earth.

It's impossible for us to be living on a globe. Impossible.
Are you saying this as a fact, or as your entirely incorrect and entirely baseless opinion?

You are yet to show a single thing which makes living on a globe impossible.


It's impossible for us to be living on a globe. Impossible.

Huh?  I think it’s quite demonstrated we live on a spherical earth.

Shrugs.


Quote















The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon



Let's deal with this first.
Let's use some logic.

If you're standing on a supposed globe and looking out to sea, let's say 5 feet eye line and absolute level vision, you would expect the sea to curve down and away from your sight.
The only way you could bring the sea and the atmosphere into level view would be to have only a theoretical line of the horizon at that level point and to do that would mean you have to be looking over a level sea against a distant atmosphere/sky.

It becomes worse for the global idealists when you start to use elevation because elevation and level sight offers a pinpoint view of the sky only and not the sea as a denser background to create a theoretical line.

It's impossible for us to be living on a globe. Impossible.

Unlike JackBlack, I concede that in your case, seeing is believing, and you simply can't see the curve.

Alternatively, you have seen the curve, on the horizontal plane, as slight as it is at 5 feet above sea level out to the horizon at sea, but your eyes are not powerful enough to perceive that curve.

But, as demonstrated, you could perceive the the earth "curve down and away from your sight", if you stand on the shoreline and are patient enough to observe a large cargo ship or cuise ship travelling away towards the horizon, disappearing hull first.

I'm not sure how your flat Earth wired brain would explain that as a flat Earth proof and not a globe Earth proof? That's a pretty solid globe Earth proof to me. Check mate, flat earther!

As a flat earther, how do you twist that globe Earth proof into a flat Earth proof?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2023, 02:21:34 PM by Smoke Machine »


The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon



Let's deal with this first.
Let's use some logic.

If you're standing on a supposed globe and looking out to sea, let's say 5 feet eye line and absolute level vision, you would expect the sea to curve down and away from your sight.
The only way you could bring the sea and the atmosphere into level view would be to have only a theoretical line of the horizon at that level point and to do that would mean you have to be looking over a level sea against a distant atmosphere/sky.

It becomes worse for the global idealists when you start to use elevation because elevation and level sight offers a pinpoint view of the sky only and not the sea as a denser background to create a theoretical line.

It's impossible for us to be living on a globe. Impossible.

Unlike JackBlack, I concede that in your case, seeing is believing, and you simply can't see the curve.

Alternatively, you have seen the curve, on the horizontal plane, as slight as it is at 5 feet above sea level out to the horizon at sea, but your eyes are not powerful enough to perceive that curve.

But, as demonstrated, you could perceive the the earth "curve down and away from your sight", if you stand on the shoreline and are patient enough to observe a large cargo ship or cuise ship travelling away towards the horizon, disappearing hull first.

I'm not sure how your flat Earth wired brain would explain that as a flat Earth proof and not a globe Earth proof? That's a pretty solid globe Earth proof to me. Check mate, flat earther!

As a flat earther, how do you twist that globe Earth proof into a flat Earth proof?

Probably blatant FE falsehoods like this…



https://www.pinterest.com/bigal8141957/round-earth/

Notice the whole camera view isn’t a good distance above the table.   But the camera view is positioned below the table top.






The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon



Let's deal with this first.
Let's use some logic.

If you're standing on a supposed globe and looking out to sea, let's say 5 feet eye line and absolute level vision, you would expect the sea to curve down and away from your sight.
The only way you could bring the sea and the atmosphere into level view would be to have only a theoretical line of the horizon at that level point and to do that would mean you have to be looking over a level sea against a distant atmosphere/sky.

It becomes worse for the global idealists when you start to use elevation because elevation and level sight offers a pinpoint view of the sky only and not the sea as a denser background to create a theoretical line.

It's impossible for us to be living on a globe. Impossible.

Unlike JackBlack, I concede that in your case, seeing is believing, and you simply can't see the curve.

Alternatively, you have seen the curve, on the horizontal plane, as slight as it is at 5 feet above sea level out to the horizon at sea, but your eyes are not powerful enough to perceive that curve.

But, as demonstrated, you could perceive the the earth "curve down and away from your sight", if you stand on the shoreline and are patient enough to observe a large cargo ship or cuise ship travelling away towards the horizon, disappearing hull first.

I'm not sure how your flat Earth wired brain would explain that as a flat Earth proof and not a globe Earth proof? That's a pretty solid globe Earth proof to me. Check mate, flat earther!

As a flat earther, how do you twist that globe Earth proof into a flat Earth proof?

Probably blatant FE falsehoods like this…



https://www.pinterest.com/bigal8141957/round-earth/

Notice the whole camera view isn’t a good distance above the table.   But the camera view is positioned below the table top.

Yes, very dishonest. If the camera were correctly at or above the table height, the entire circle of the coin would be seen even with coin at a distance.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
So taking the typical route of refusing to provide any explanation for how this would work on a FE, and instead throwing out the same refuted BS against the RE?

It works on a level over distance because our eyes lose the distant light back to them which creates a narrow view top to bottom just as the eyes do when you reach a pinpoint vanishing point.

Light to dark creates the illusion of a horizon line.
This would be impossible on a downward curvature no matter how big people pretend their global Earth is.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Unlike JackBlack, I concede that in your case, seeing is believing, and you simply can't see the curve.

Alternatively, you have seen the curve, on the horizontal plane, as slight as it is at 5 feet above sea level out to the horizon at sea, but your eyes are not powerful enough to perceive that curve.

That's because there is no curve.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
But, as demonstrated, you could perceive the the earth "curve down and away from your sight", if you stand on the shoreline and are patient enough to observe a large cargo ship or cuise ship travelling away towards the horizon, disappearing hull first.
They only disappear hull first because the light above counteracts the lesser light below back to our vision, omitting the lower part of the ship.

Nothing to do with a ship somehow tipping over some downward curvature, otherwise we would see the stern disappear last, not the mast.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
I'm not sure how your flat Earth wired brain would explain that as a flat Earth proof and not a globe Earth proof? That's a pretty solid globe Earth proof to me. Check mate, flat earther!
For you, it's simply a mere movement of a pawn. For me, It's a massive advancement of my queen to check your king with only one move left for you and that's to tip over your king, global earther.
Quote from: Smoke Machine
As a flat earther, how do you twist that globe Earth proof into a flat Earth proof?
Easy. There never was and never will be global Earth-proof.

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2023, 10:34:18 AM »

 That's because there is no curve.


Reality demonstrates there is a spherical earth.

From sunrise, to solar eclipses, to how over the horizon radar works.


Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2023, 10:38:38 AM »

 It works on a level over distance because our eyes lose the distant light back to them which creates a narrow view top to bottom just as the eyes do when you reach a pinpoint vanishing point.


And yet.  I couldn’t use vanishing point to make my duck become physically blocked from view…

See thread:

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2023, 11:51:19 AM »
So taking the typical route of refusing to provide any explanation for how this would work on a FE, and instead throwing out the same refuted BS against the RE?

It works on a level over distance because our eyes lose the distant light back to them which creates a narrow view top to bottom just as the eyes do when you reach a pinpoint vanishing point.

Light to dark creates the illusion of a horizon line.
This would be impossible on a downward curvature no matter how big people pretend their global Earth is.

Why limited to just top to bottom? Why not side to side? Or all around, for that matter, considering that one's eye is a ball?

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2023, 03:48:14 PM »
It works on a level over distance because our eyes lose the distant light back to them which creates a narrow view top to bottom just as the eyes do when you reach a pinpoint vanishing point.

Light to dark creates the illusion of a horizon line.
You have spouted all this nonsense and refused to explain it.

Firstly, light quite clearly can reach our eyes from that distance, as seen by objects visible above the horizon with the lower portion missing.

But the bigger issue is what magic causes the things to appear to sink?
Our eyes work quite simply based upon angles.
If the light magically wouldn't' reach our eyes, we would expect a region of darkness or a blur.
We wouldn't expect objects to appear to sink with the bottoms appearing below the water/ground.

This would be impossible on a downward curvature no matter how big people pretend their global Earth is.
Your fantasy is impossible regardless of the shape of Earth.
But the reality of how it works, with Earth curving to obstruct the view does work.

And you are yet to show any actual fault with it.
Instead you just repeat the same refuted lies.

Again, with a RE, with a radius of 6371 km, and an observer height of 2 m (eye level), you would expect the horizon to be at 0.05 degrees below level.
This is comparable to getting a pin and holding it out at 63 cm away from your eye, but along the line of sight directly level through your eye. And this is only twice as large as where the same point would be for a FE.

That is NOT going to be noticeable. You will need a very precise instrument to measure it.

If you disagree, then instead of just asserting the same delusional BS, do the math to show just where the horizon should appear in your FOV on a RE.

They only disappear hull first because the light above counteracts the lesser light below back to our vision, omitting the lower part of the ship.
If this was the case, the bottom part would simply disappear. It would NOT be the case that the ship appears to sink into the water, with the water blocking the view.

If you wish to claim otherwise, then explain why magic causes the ship to magically appear to sink.

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2023, 02:57:20 AM »
When objects first appear to be rising upward, while on a surface, which ALSO appears to be rising upward, when in full view, before the horizon, which appears even HIGHER than the objects appear to be, at that point.

The object appears higher, on a surface that also appears higher, before it's not seen, beyond those horizons which appear so much higher, at a distance.   

When we see the oceans, and see objects that are ON the oceans, appear to be rising up, appear to be higher up, when seen at a greater distance, it is due to perspective, of course.

It is also perspective which makes horizons form, over the Earth's surface, and why we cannot see objects past the horizons, of course. When we see the oceans rising up higher and higher with more distance away, but not when objects aren't seen past the horizons, which appear much higher, of course, due to perspective, but they really DO curve down after that! Nice one!
   

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2023, 03:43:02 AM »
When objects first appear to be rising upward, while on a surface, which ALSO appears to be rising upward, when in full view, before the horizon, which appears even HIGHER than the objects appear to be, at that point.

The object appears higher, on a surface that also appears higher, before it's not seen, beyond those horizons which appear so much higher, at a distance.   

When we see the oceans, and see objects that are ON the oceans, appear to be rising up, appear to be higher up, when seen at a greater distance, it is due to perspective, of course.

It is also perspective which makes horizons form, over the Earth's surface, and why we cannot see objects past the horizons, of course. When we see the oceans rising up higher and higher with more distance away, but not when objects aren't seen past the horizons, which appear much higher, of course, due to perspective, but they really DO curve down after that! Nice one!
You started off well, but then crashed and burned in the last paragraph.

A simple way to sum up perspective that you were talking about is that for an object below you, as it gets further away it appears higher.
This continues FOREVER!
It doesn't magically stop and reverse.

Perspective demands that the further away a point on a flat surface is (assuming it is below you) the higher it will appear.
It does not allow any magical horizon.
It CANNOT allow the near ground to block the view to an object above it.

If you wish to assert such delusional nonsense, then you will need to justify it, explaining how perspective magically does this.

Conversely, with a RE, perspective will still exist and make objects appear higher.
But eventually, curvature wins.

This is what allows a horizon to form, the curve.
No curve, no horizon.

Again, this is summed up quite nicely in this graph:


For a flat Earth, the ground keeps on rising at an ever decreasing rate, never stopping.
But for a RE, you have the competing effects of perspective trying to make the ground appear higher, and the curvature making the ground physically lower. At short distances perspective wins making the ground appear higher. At large distances curvature wins, making the ground appear lower.

Again, this is something any more can check just by looking at a basketball (or any other small ball) which is positioned below them. You can even stand on it.
Instead of appearing as a point as you need for your fantasy, it instead appears to rise up, before dropping back down.

The question is how high it will go.
And the math for that is incredibly simple, and already provided in this thread.
The angle of dip is given by arccos(r/(r+h)).
For a round Earth, with a radius of 6371 km, and an observer height of 2 m, that works out to be 0.05 degrees.

Once more, the RE works and your delusional garbage does not.

If you want to pretend this works on a FE, explain how perspective magically stops and reverse, making the ground no longer appear to rise to produce a horizon, and as extrapolated from objects beyond the horizon, instead magically makes it appear to get lower, including making objects beyond the horizon appear to sink, regardless of if they are above or below eye level.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 03:44:38 AM by JackBlack »

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2023, 04:24:10 AM »
Except perspective, distance, and depth, are always drawn with straight lines, and flat surfaces, which depict the REAL world, as the Earth DOES have a flat surface.

All our instruments measure the surface as flat, depict horizons as straight, horizontal lines across the Earth's surface, which is the case.


If you say 'curvature' has measurement of 8 inches per mile, squared per every additional mile,
what is it based on? Not any measurement, supposedly, because it's 'too slight to measure', or some crap like that.


Levels measure for flat, straight, horizontal surfaces, and level flight in air, and so forth,

And we also know all surveyors assume surfaces are flat, and work from that assumption, in their projects, which somehow don't need to account for your 'curvature' at all!

If there WAS 'curvature', and it was measured to be 8 inches per mile, squared every mile, why would they not assume all surfaces have such 'curvature', and work from that premise? They certainly WOULD assume that, if they thought it WAS curved at all.

 


Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #17 on: April 15, 2023, 05:12:28 AM »
Except perspective, distance, and depth, are always drawn with straight lines, and flat surfaces, which depict the REAL world, as the Earth DOES have a flat surface.

All our instruments measure the surface as flat, depict horizons as straight, horizontal lines across the Earth's surface, which is the case.


If you say 'curvature' has measurement of 8 inches per mile, squared per every additional mile,
what is it based on? Not any measurement, supposedly, because it's 'too slight to measure', or some crap like that.


Levels measure for flat, straight, horizontal surfaces, and level flight in air, and so forth,

And we also know all surveyors assume surfaces are flat, and work from that assumption, in their projects, which somehow don't need to account for your 'curvature' at all!

If there WAS 'curvature', and it was measured to be 8 inches per mile, squared every mile, why would they not assume all surfaces have such 'curvature', and work from that premise? They certainly WOULD assume that, if they thought it WAS curved at all.

This thread “Horizon did not block duck from view” shows there is no way a flat surface can physically block an object sitting on that surface from view while viewed from above that surface.

Again…


« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 05:23:56 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2023, 05:21:32 AM »

All our instruments measure the surface as flat,

List what specific instruments by name and nomenclature.

Meanwhile, curvature is measured…

Quote
Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Observations
All observations agree very well with the predictions of the Globe Model, but contradict the Flat Earth Model.

Refraction
The Terrestrial Refraction has an influence on the observations. But distorted images reveal strong refraction. The signs of low standard refraction are clear and stable images. Under these conditions the observations agree very well with the Globe Model.

To get the same observations on a Flat Earth, the Refraction in the whole atmosphere would have to be physically impossible strongly negative. See Refraktion in the Flat Earth Model.

GPS/GNSS

The cm-accurate measurement of positions in space using Differential GPS enables us to measure the radius of the earth and earth's curvature without optical detours.

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.

The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.

Only one conclusion remains:

The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

Now.  Instead of being a F’n troll and trying to derail this thread.  Can you actually debate..

One: Skyline Skepticism: The Lake Michigan Mirage

https://www.abc57.com/news/mirage-of-chicago-skyline-seen-from-michigan-shoreline


Two: Henry Yule Oldham

Three: Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km



Four:  Sun over Spitsbergen : the flat Earth Sun orbit!

Jos Leys





Five: The mathematics of the sun above the flat Earth.


And now six: Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion


Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2023, 06:14:50 AM »
This thread “Horizon did not block duck from view” shows there is no way a flat surface can physically block an object sitting on that surface from view while viewed from above that surface.

Again…



When the surface appears to be rising up in the distance, it is not physically rising at all, but that's what it looks like to us.

Physically true doesn't matter, sometimes, as in this case.

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2023, 06:26:31 AM »
This thread “Horizon did not block duck from view” shows there is no way a flat surface can physically block an object sitting on that surface from view while viewed from above that surface.

Again…



When the surface appears to be rising up in the distance, it is not physically rising at all, but that's what it looks like to us.

Physically true doesn't matter, sometimes, as in this case.

I don’t care what you think is going on.  The real question is why items like the bottom of boats and single point light sources like the sun become physically blocked from view.

Again.  This thread.  Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0


Shows that perspective/ vanishing point cannot physical block an object or light source from view with actual objects in three dimensions. 

Sorry.  Your lies and falsehoods were exposed, refuted, and debunked.  Repeatedly in many threads in many ways. Over different sites. With you having no why to show physical how your lies work.  Because they are lies. 

You’re either blinded by being biased or a troll at this point. 

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2023, 06:50:00 AM »
They are visually blocked out, not physically blocked out, our vision is limiting what is actually there on the surface, past what we CAN see, with our eyes and instruments, which work as our eyes do, in essence.

Parallel objects appear to be converging in the distance, they are not PHYSICALLY converging, at all. But to our eyes, they look like they are converging.

It is how our eyes, that causes all these 'problems', in essence. Illusions, wjich our eyes 'create'

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2023, 07:07:14 AM »
They are visually blocked out,

How.  How does it physically block the line of sight transmission of light? 

What is physically stoping the photons from getting to my eyes.

Why wasn’t that phenomenon witnessed / recorded in my experiments in “Horizon did not block duck from view”

I gave every advantage to perspective/vanishing point by placing the camera and object right down on the same plane..

Your stupid duck isn't nearly far enough to work.

Noticed you ignored the flashlight that was visible at 360 steps



25” per step times 360 steps comes to an estimate of 750 feet.  Or 9000 inches.  With the light bulb about .5 inches off the track.   If you divide .5 inches height by 9000 inches length , you get a height to length ratio of 0.000055555555556.

Again.  For a 300 mile height for a flat earth sun, at 12,000 miles length maximum viewing distance.  300 miles divided by 12,000 miles equals 0.025.

For the flashlight viewed at 9,000 inches,  to get a ratio of 0.025 height to distance.  9,000 inches multiplied by 0.025 comes to the flashlight being a height of 225 inches above the track.  Or 18 feet above the track to keep the same scale as the flat earth scenario. 


My experiments give every advantage to perspective, and more so than the observed world. 

 Perspective never physically blocked an object from view. 

Perspective could not hide an object where the the object could not be brought back into sight with zoom.

 And perspective could not physically block a single light source from view.


There is no evidence that on a flat plane an object will be blocked from view when viewed from above that plane.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 07:13:09 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2023, 02:00:53 PM »
Unlike JackBlack, I concede that in your case, seeing is believing, and you simply can't see the curve.

Alternatively, you have seen the curve, on the horizontal plane, as slight as it is at 5 feet above sea level out to the horizon at sea, but your eyes are not powerful enough to perceive that curve.

That's because there is no curve.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
But, as demonstrated, you could perceive the the earth "curve down and away from your sight", if you stand on the shoreline and are patient enough to observe a large cargo ship or cuise ship travelling away towards the horizon, disappearing hull first.
They only disappear hull first because the light above counteracts the lesser light below back to our vision, omitting the lower part of the ship.

Nothing to do with a ship somehow tipping over some downward curvature, otherwise we would see the stern disappear last, not the mast.


Quote from: Smoke Machine
I'm not sure how your flat Earth wired brain would explain that as a flat Earth proof and not a globe Earth proof? That's a pretty solid globe Earth proof to me. Check mate, flat earther!
For you, it's simply a mere movement of a pawn. For me, It's a massive advancement of my queen to check your king with only one move left for you and that's to tip over your king, global earther.
Quote from: Smoke Machine
As a flat earther, how do you twist that globe Earth proof into a flat Earth proof?
Easy. There never was and never will be global Earth-proof.

No, you're still firmly in "check" Sceptimatic, and twisting and turning uselessly against, "mate", as your flat earth king prepares for capture and the game ends.

I guess this is where angles become important. You could test your theory using a little model boat going over the edge of a table, with your eyes at the table height. Yes, if the earth were flat and ships could fall over the edge, yes, I agree you would certainly see the stern disappear last. But on a gentle downward slope, the mast is last to disappear, as we see, and as I'd expect on a glorious globe earth. Don't just take my word for it - try it for yourself.

Oh, and I'm going to trip Turbonium up on this as well.....You talk about light counteracting light back to our vision.....do cameras have vision also?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 02:08:44 PM by Smoke Machine »

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2023, 02:17:18 PM »
They are visually blocked out, not physically blocked out, our vision is limiting what is actually there on the surface, past what we CAN see, with our eyes and instruments, which work as our eyes do, in essence.

Parallel objects appear to be converging in the distance, they are not PHYSICALLY converging, at all. But to our eyes, they look like they are converging.

It is how our eyes, that causes all these 'problems', in essence. Illusions, wjich our eyes 'create'

To our cameras, parallel lines are converging in the distance also. Just like to our eyes.

So, do cameras cause all these same problems as well? The camera doesn't lie, Turbonium.

According to our cameras, those lines are physically converging, due to perspective, not through just some optical illusion. Look around your room. Perspective is in play, everywhere you look.

« Last Edit: April 15, 2023, 11:24:50 PM by Smoke Machine »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2023, 03:15:28 PM »
Except perspective, distance, and depth, are always drawn with straight lines, and flat surfaces
Because that is what perspective relies upon, and that DOESN'T create a horizon.
It requires an infinite distance for the parallel lines to converge.

But no, it isn't always done like that. Just for simple things, like teaching children.

And yet again, notice how that after your delusional BS is refuted, you flee from it.

This time I wont entertain it.
Stick to the horizon, and objects disappearing beyond it.
After all, that is one simple way to measure the curve.

If Earth was flat, it shouldn't matter how far away an object is, it shouldn't appear to sink or have the bottom obscured.
In order to have the bottom of the object obscured by Earth, with the object sinking, you need Earth to curve (or magic bendy light).

If you grow up, and admit that you have no explanation for how the bottom of objects are obscured in your fantasy, and that a RE can actually explain what is observed, we can move on to your lies regarding levels and the measured curvature of Earth.

When the surface appears to be rising up in the distance, it is not physically rising at all, but that's what it looks like to us.
The problem isn't the rising.
The problem is it stopping rising and starting to sink.

For a flat surface, that NEVER happens. Instead, it continues to rise forever.

Again, this graphic shows that quite well:

A flat surface continues to rise at a decreasing rate. And this continues FOREVER.
It never reaches a peak and starts to drop.

But it stopping and going back down is exactly what is needed to match observations from reality.

A flat surface does not work to explain reality. A curved surface does.

Physically true doesn't matter, sometimes, as in this case.
i.e. cases where something being physically true shows your claims are pure garabge?
At this point you are happy to discard reality and cling to a delusional fantasy?

Blocking from view is a very simple thing to understand, and doesn't even need perspective to explain it.
If you are looking towards an object, if something is between you and the object, your view is blocked, physically.
If nothing is between you and the object, then your view is not blocked.

The fact that the bottom of the object is obscured shows there is something in the way, blocking the view.
The fact that this is Earth, with both you and the object above Earth, shows that Earth is curved, with that curvature blocking the view.

But because all this shows you are wrong, you discard the truth, and choose to cling to a delusional fantasy instead.

They are visually blocked out, not physically blocked out
So you are relying upon magic?

If they aren't physically blocked out, then they would be visible.

The best you can get otherwise is an object too small to resolve.
But that is clearly not the case, as we can resolve the top of the object and parts of it much smaller than what is missing.

If you wish to claim such delusional garbage, you will need to explain just what magic causes this.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2023, 03:45:32 PM »
Here's another one to "settle the debate":

351,000 feet...



I guess now the firmament must be at 352,000 feet over Texas...

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2023, 04:39:13 PM »
And here is another example for you:
As it got so busy I decided to make it 2 separate graphs.
One showing the physical, actual position, and the other showing angular position.

This time it shows the horizon as both a line showing its angular position, and the line of sight in physical space.
It also shows a point on a boat 1 m above the surface.




First, I will be focusing on the angular position.
This is how your eyes work. Something at a higher angular position appears higher.
But more importantly, if you have something (say the RE), having a particular angular position at some point close to the observer (to the left of the diagram), then it will block anything at that position further away (to the right).
And if we look at the RE angular position we see it initially rises before going back down.
This gives us the horizon shown by the black dotted line. Anything below that line will not be visible.
This also has a corresponding section on the physical diagram.
The line from the eye to that point on the RE, where it is tangent shows the limit of vision.
Any point below that black line, to the right of where it touches the line representing Earth will have a straight line to the eye passing through Earth, meaning Earth will physically obstruct the view.
And this applies to Earth as well. A point on Earth (at sea level) further away than this point will be blocked from view by Earth.

Notice how for a point on a boat, 1 m above the water, it initially starts off above/to the left of the green line, making it clearly visible.
And notice that the height above the green line is also diminishing, showing the boat appears smaller.
Eventually you reach the 5 km mark, where the horizon is, and the boat is still visible above the horizon.
Eventually the yellow and black lines intersect, at around 8.5 km. At this point, that 1 m mark on the boat has visually sunk below the horizon and is now obscured from view.
This corresponds to the physical, where we see at the same distance, roughly 8.5 km, the physical position of the boat has dropped below the black line, meaning a line from the eye to the point on the boat at that distance will be physically blocked from view by Earth.

There is no magic visual only blocking.

The object is PHYSICALLY blocked from view by Earth.

Now compare that to the FE.
We see that perspective does what it should, the Earth continues to rise at an ever decreasing rate, NEVER stopping, and NEVER going back down.
This means it NEVER reaches a point where more distant land/ocean is blocked from view by closer land/ocean.
We also observe the 1 m mark on the boat remain above the line of the Earth, so it is NEVER blocked from view.
It gets smaller, but it always visible.

Once more, the FE fails, but the RE works.

Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2023, 12:34:26 AM »
A simple way to sum up perspective that you were talking about is that for an object below you, as it gets further away it appears higher.
This continues FOREVER!
It doesn't magically stop and reverse.

Perspective demands that the further away a point on a flat surface is (assuming it is below you) the higher it will appear.
It does not allow any magical horizon.
It CANNOT allow the near ground to block the view to an object above it.

If you wish to assert such delusional nonsense, then you will need to justify it, explaining how perspective magically does this.

Conversely, with a RE, perspective will still exist and make objects appear higher.
But eventually, curvature wins.

This is what allows a horizon to form, the curve.
No curve, no horizon.

Again, this is summed up quite nicely in this graph:


For a flat Earth, the ground keeps on rising at an ever decreasing rate, never stopping.
But for a RE, you have the competing effects of perspective trying to make the ground appear higher, and the curvature making the ground physically lower. At short distances perspective wins making the ground appear higher. At large distances curvature wins, making the ground appear lower.

Again, this is something any more can check just by looking at a basketball (or any other small ball) which is positioned below them. You can even stand on it.
Instead of appearing as a point as you need for your fantasy, it instead appears to rise up, before dropping back down.

The question is how high it will go.
And the math for that is incredibly simple, and already provided in this thread.
The angle of dip is given by arccos(r/(r+h)).
For a round Earth, with a radius of 6371 km, and an observer height of 2 m, that works out to be 0.05 degrees.

Once more, the RE works and your delusional garbage does not.

If you want to pretend this works on a FE, explain how perspective magically stops and reverse, making the ground no longer appear to rise to produce a horizon, and as extrapolated from objects beyond the horizon, instead magically makes it appear to get lower, including making objects beyond the horizon appear to sink, regardless of if they are above or below eye level.

The only way you'll ever understand this, would be if you can imagine being a microscopic speck, on a massive flat table, or floor.

We must have a completely FLAT surface, to show how it will form a horizon, if it is LONG enough to form one, and see it from that flat surface.

With a floor, it must be completely flat, and at least 1/2 mile long, while we see and film it from a few inches above the floor. I guarantee that you would see a horizon in the distance, without a doubt. Not that we have such a floor, of course.


As for your claim about 'curvature' 'winning out' over perspective, that's just nonsense.

On the ground, a horizon is seen about 3 miles away. In a plane at 30000 feet, a horizon is hundreds of miles away. Both horizons are directly across from us, which is proof that there is NO 'curvature' at all. Because both horizons are seen directly across from us, on the ground, and at 30000 feet. If Earth was a sphere, the horizons would NOT be directly across from us, it would be MUCH lower at 30000 feet than it is on the ground, because it would curve downward more and more, when higher and higher above the ball Earth's round surface.

Rising higher and higher above a ball, will show less and less of it's surface, curving more and more downward, away from you above it.

What point does the horizon look any LOWER than we always see it?

It's never seen lower, it's never seen with a curve over it, and that's the reason your side can NEVER simulate what happens when rising from the surface, until the horizon will finally show a CURVE over it, and keep rising up, to show a ball Earth below us, within an 'endless space'.

I've seen a couple of clips, which showed a curved horizon at altitudes we SEE are completely flat. I wondered why they curved it so low, where we see it is flat.....

The reason is, when you must show Earth as a ball, in space, at the end, it has to start curving at some altitude, to end up with a ball Earth in 'space', but it would have to FIRST show up as a curve, and that's where it falls apart.

If you've seen that clip, you'll notice that it ends up with part of a ball Earth below it, in 'space'.

But it starts to show a curve, where no curve is ever seen, in the real world. It doesn't show any altitudes, for good reason. It would be a joke, if they tried to show what altitude a curve is seen over a horizon!

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2023, 01:07:19 AM »
The only way you'll ever understand this, would be if you can imagine being a microscopic speck, on a massive flat table, or floor.
I understand your claims.
I just recognise it is complete BS.

What you need to explain how this magic works.
What magic causes perspective to stop and reverse?
Why does this only happen with objects below us?

With a floor, it must be completely flat, and at least 1/2 mile long, while we see and film it from a few inches above the floor.
You must also ensure it is flat, rather than level and following the curve.
As an approximation, if you have a flat surface 1/2 an archaic unit long, then the drop over that distance will be 2 archaic units.
So an observer height of 2 archaic units will produce a horizon due to the curve.

So you are basically trying to have the curve of Earth create a horizon at a much shorter distance due to a lower observer height.

You aren't showing a flat surface creating a horizon.

Again, what would actually work is an explanation for what magic causes it.

As for your claim about 'curvature' 'winning out' over perspective, that's just nonsense.
Why?
Because it so easily attacks the heart of your garbage; clearly explaining how a RE produces a horizon?

Notice that you don't even attempt to refute it and instead just resort to other delusional BS?

Again, stop with the pathetic deflections, and explain what magic causes the horizon and blocks the view to distant objects.
Or admit you can't.

Once you have done the impossible, or you have admitted the RE explains reality while your delusional garbage does not we can move on to even more lies about the RE from you.