Debunking Flat Earth

FrumiousBandersnatch said:

For a logical proof to be sound (true), the premises must be true. You'd need to demonstrate that "we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye" rather than just asserting it.

Click to expand...

This one's been nailed shut. There are scores, if not hundreds, of vids on YT. It's a simple experiment that you can perform yourself, with the aid of a decent zoom lens and tripod. Consistent repeatable results, hard to mess up.

Shrewd Manager said:

Meantime, I won't pretend my model's perfect when my own top scientists even admit to being '95% stupid'.

Click to expand...

LOL, "Model", you haven't got any model.

Shrewd Manager said:

This one's been nailed shut. There are scores, if not hundreds, of vids on YT. It's a simple experiment that you can perform yourself, with the aid of a decent zoom lens and tripod. Consistent repeatable results, hard to mess up.

Click to expand...

A youtube scholar eh?

Shrewd Manager said:

Whatever. As I said, it must be an optical effect, because we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye. Logical proof. Follow?

Click to expand...

You can retrieve the sun after it's set ?

Shrewd Manager said:

Happy to do that, when someone can present me with some actual physical evidence of curvature or motion.

Click to expand...

Physical evidence... like the measurable horizon drop at various altitudes? Which is consistent with other measurements of earth's radius?
Or measurements of earth's rotation, like the one the Flat Earther Bob Knodel did with his expensive laser gyroscope... confirmining the 15° rotation, to his great annoyance?

Meantime, I won't pretend my model's perfect when my own top scientists even admit to being '95% stupid'.

Click to expand...

You don't have a "model". What you have is conjectures, claims and empty words.

The existing physical models - all experimentally backed - for optics and atmospherical conditions do support the global model, contradict the flat earth "explanations", and none of these flerf experiments can be shown to have an analogy in the real world.

As you said: "Sundogs, rainbows and the like, all of which can be experimentally reproduced in a snowglobe."
Yes, they can. The problem is that you cannot transfer the condition of these "snowglobes" that were used in these experiments to the real world.

For example: we know how lenses work. Optics is a very good explained and backed field of physics. If you wear glasses, you trust in the correctness of this system every day.
But this same system tells us that an effect as is needed by flerf positions cannot work under these rules.

Shrewd Manager said:

Whatever. As I said, it must be an optical effect, because we can retrieve the object after it's lost to the eye. Logical proof. Follow?

Click to expand...

Ah, that would be very easy to demonstrate.
There are enough examples, even on YouTube, of major structures or geological features where only the bottom parts are "lost to the eye".

The explanation of perspective, lensing or angular size or other "optical effects" cannot apply in these cases, because the top parts of these objects are still clearly seen.

So, take a telescope or zoom camera and "retrieve" the lost parts. That would be an experiment that would have some value.

You can find tons of videos of Bigfoot and flying saucers on YouTube too, I guess that proves they're real.

Like this one? A ship sailing parallel to the viewer?


Or this one? This boat's not near the horizon, it can't be seen because it's too small after the camera's zoomed out.


I did try but found no videos of objects being retrieved by zoom lens' after they've disappeared over the horizon. Maybe they don't exist?

Jimmy D said:

LOL, "Model", you haven't got any model.

Click to expand...

You're right, she left me for a suave guy with a mo.

Jimmy D said:

A youtube scholar eh?

Click to expand...

The open university!

A_Thinker said:

You can retrieve the sun after it's set ?

Click to expand...

That one, no. But terrestrial objects, yea.

Freodin said:

There are enough examples, even on YouTube, of major structures or geological features where only the bottom parts are "lost to the eye".

Click to expand...

Maybe, but they should be completely obscured in many cases. We're talking long range stuff, not marginal examples.

Freodin said:

The explanation of perspective, lensing or angular size or other "optical effects" cannot apply in these cases, because the top parts of these objects are still clearly seen.

Click to expand...

Maybe 'inferior mirage' is the effect:

Jimmy D said:

I did try but found no videos of objects being retrieved by zoom lens' after they've disappeared over the horizon. Maybe they don't exist?

Click to expand...

This is the kind of 'standard approach' in short form:

Strathos said:

You can find tons of videos of Bigfoot and flying saucers on YouTube too, I guess that proves they're real.

Click to expand...

As real as the ball earth and santa!

Shrewd Manager said:

Maybe, but they should be completely obscured in many cases. We're talking long range stuff, not marginal examples.

Click to expand...

As long as we are talking about "beyond the visible horizon", the range is quite irrelevant, wouldn't you think? After all... we were talking about the sun. Is that a "marginal example"?

Maybe 'inferior mirage' is the effect:

Click to expand...

Yes, that is an existing optical phenomenon. And we know how and why it works.
But the "disappearance beyond the horizon" works in all atmospheric conditions. At different ranges. Consistently.
It's a little difficult to explain that with what is a very unstable and conditional phenomenon.

So, again: take an object that is (acording to the globe model) partially obstructed by the curvature of the earth. A tall building. A mountain. Something where you can clearly see the visible part.
And then zoom in on it and "retrieve" the hidden part.

Do that, and I will consider the flat earth model.

Shrewd Manager said:

That one, no. But terrestrial objects, yea.

Click to expand...

An object which is small enough (a small sailboat, for example) ... can disappear due to the limit of our vision, ... only to be retrievable with technology which increases the limits of our vision.

However, objects which have dropped below the horizon (i.e. sunsets, larger boats, mountains, etc.) cannot be be retrieved.

The observation(s) which might disprove this are ... retrieving the sun after it has set, or recovoring the obscurred portion of a still visible object which is only partially obscurred by the horizon.

'Now I've got an atheist telling me about the Bible. Most humble man in the room, no doubt.'

Ad hominem attacks will not insert the word 'flat' into Genesis Ch1. I read through the chapter before my post. Shrewd Manager could do the same. (My Bible is the Authorised Version, in case there is a doubt.)

Now he is relegating the whole of astronomy to the nursery to defend his ridiculous posture.

Freodin said:

As long as we are talking about "beyond the visible horizon", the range is quite irrelevant, wouldn't you think? After all... we were talking about the sun. Is that a "marginal example"?

Click to expand...

Just keep hammering away at the sun point my man, I don't have all the answers...yet.

Freodin said:

So, again: take an object that is (acording to the globe model) partially obstructed by the curvature of the earth. A tall building. A mountain. Something where you can clearly see the visible part.
And then zoom in on it and "retrieve" the hidden part.

Do that, and I will consider the flat earth model.

Click to expand...

Hm, but isn't there always going to be some miraging or 'melding' optical effect around the base? And again, if there are many examples of visible objects that should be entirely hidden behind lots of curve, why wouldn't they do the job? They should blow that concern out of the water, no?

A_Thinker said:

The observation(s) which might disprove this are ... retrieving the sun after it has set, or recovoring the obscurred portion of a still visible object which is only partially obscurred by the horizon.

Click to expand...

It's purely a function of distance and height. The math is uncontentious. Plus add a generous allowance for refraction. There are a few calculators online eg Earth Curve Calculator

There are so many examples of objects (including lighthouses, lightships, beacons and buoys, mountains etc) that mathematically should be gone daddy gone according to the math, but there they are.

Shrewd Manager said:

I don't have all the answers...yet.

Click to expand...

I keep hearing this from people pushing an idea that they like. But they haven't and dont seem to want to do the hars work to check their ideas.

As long as you hold on to youtube as your main source and not doing the experiments and observations you need to support your claim, this statement of not knowing yet is just ironic.

Test, retest, remove variables, repeat others tests. Dont take other people's word for it even if it supports your claim.

Arguing on a form is not doing any of that.

Paulos23 said:

Test, retest, remove variables, repeat others tests. Dont take other people's word for it even if it supports your claim.

Arguing on a form is not doing any of that.

Click to expand...

Well, they did that, Michelson Morley, Sagnac, Airey, Michelson Gale experiments. Motion? Nada.

So the standard model has serious problems. If you want to accept the Lorentz Einstein explanations that's your business, but it won't pass your rigorous scientific method.

So instead of lecturing me, Solo, why not just get the Wookie to present us with actual physical evidence of motion or curvature before you go into warp drive? Shouldn't be so hard.

Shrewd Manager said:

Just keep hammering away at the sun point my man, I don't have all the answers...yet.

Click to expand...

That didn't keep you from presenting your "answers" before, hinting at "effects that haven't been pinpointed yet".

Well, I won't nail you on that. Do your research and present answers when you get them.

There's just one major problem I have with your whole approach:
You don't have answers. Yet, you say. But still, that means you don't have answers. Where you present "answers", they are inconclusive or easily to be shown false.

On the other hand... the standard model of the globe and the solar system has answers. These answers fit the existing observations quite well... even in the face of the cited examples of "what shouldn't be visible".

So I am quite willing to accept any concise flat earth models that are presented. When they are presented.

But then I would expect that you - and the rest of the Flerfers - would also accept the globe model as a potential answer. It is a concise model, well backed up by centuries of observations and experiments.

Yet, as I said before, Flerfers are quick to accept any explanation, regardless of how far-fetched it is, or how many of their other claims it contradicts. ANY explanation... except a globular earth.

Searching for truth is something else.

Hm, but isn't there always going to be some miraging or 'melding' optical effect around the base?

Click to expand...

Yes, there will always be some "miraging" effect. But these effects will not be constant, and not in the magnitude or way that would be necessary to explain the visible drop of the horizon.

And again, if there are many examples of visible objects that should be entirely hidden behind lots of curve, why wouldn't they do the job? They should blow that concern out of the water, no?

Click to expand...

If there were such examples, this would be something that needed to be explained. Those examples that I have seen are usually the result of shoddy measurements.