Debunking Flat Earth

Shrewd Manager said:

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.

Click to expand...

I may have mentioned this to you before, ... but in previous discussions, I debunked a dozen or more claims to such, ... which were flawed by bad math, missed observations, or sloppy analysis. In these examples, observers had incorrect distances, incorrect viewing height values, and/or were reading the results of the calculation incorrectly.

On the "Behind the Curve" documentary, two quite well known flat earth promoters (Jeranism and GlobeBusters) did recorded measurements where their observations disproved, rather than proved, their thesis.

For one of these offerings to stand, there would have to be corroboration of the details of the observations (i.e. we would have to be able to verify that the viewing height and distance were exactly what the observer was claiming).

Without a way to verify that what observers said they have done ... is, truly and accurately, what was done, ... no effective proofs can be demonstrated.

Shrewd Manager said:

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.

Click to expand...

Take a look at the documentary "Behind the Curve" to see flat earth promoters making observational measurements which prove "curve" ...

Freodin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Au contraire, it's the globe earth that lacks answers.
Where is the physical evidence of motion or curvature? Kind of 'sine qua nons' of the whole deal.
How do you explain objects being visible when they should be obscured behind a ton of curve?

Freodin said:

It is a concise model, well backed up by centuries of observations and experiments.

Click to expand...

What experiments? Every experiment ever done to detect/ measure motion has failed! Many big name scientists have expressly conceded this point. Quotes From Famous Scientists On Geocentrism : Geocentrism

Do you know something these boffins don't?

Freodin said:

Those examples that I have seen are usually the result of shoddy measurements.

Click to expand...

Well the Klinkerbein example from WWII should get you thinking seriously. There Gerry used 2 intersecting beams and baffled the boys down at GCHQ. What's the problem?

Have a look at some examples at this guy's channel. He's an engineer who uses infrared filters to get mega-long range stuff:
JTolan Media1

A_Thinker said:

In these examples, the observer had incorrect distances, incorrect viewing height values, and/or were reading the results of the calculation incorrectly

Click to expand...

Sure, not the ones I've seen. And don't worry, as a YT scholar I read the comment sections to find the ballers' best responses.

A_Thinker said:

On the "Behind the Curve" documentary, two quite well known flat earth promoters (Jeranism and GlobeBusters) did recorded measurements where their observations disproved, rather than proved their thesis.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, that's just how it was framed. There's always been a small ether drift measured (refer Michelson-Morley, for example), but not enough for standard model movement.

A_Thinker said:

For one of these offerings to stand, there would have to be corroboration of the details of the observations (i.e. we would have to be able to verify that the viewing height and distance were exactly what the observer was claiming).

Click to expand...

Sure, a lot of these vids they run through the method while they're doing it, so you can see the measurement of the camera height above the water line for instance. The armchair lizard can generally estimate camera height anyway. We've been through this, you guys just love to obfuscate on these points for want of a real defence.

Shrewd Manager said:

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

Click to expand...

You mean this experiment? It shows movement so I dont know what you are talking about. Parallax also shows the Earth moves. I have not seen a good explanation for these and other observations from the flat model that the globe model explains so well.

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.

Click to expand...

It is not in trouble and it does pass rigor scientific method. I have yet to see you do the same to the evidence you present or the claims you make.

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.

Click to expand...

Shadows on the moon. By the shadow on the moon we can see it is a sphere, same with other planets through the telescope. Why is the Earth flat and other solar objects are spheres? When you map the day and night line on a map, it works better on a globe than a flat version of the Earth. There is no reason to think the Earth is different.

Seasons are well explained in the global model. The same with navigation via stars and the sun. It is done on a sphere and not a plain. The same with the difference with the stars you see through the year and if you move from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere.

While you are so focused on just measuring the curve, you ignore all the other large evidences that the flat model does not explain.

Shrewd Manager said:

Au contraire, it's the globe earth that lacks answers.
Where is the physical evidence of motion or curvature? Kind of 'sine qua nons' of the whole deal.
How do you explain objects being visible when they should be obscured behind a ton of curve?

Click to expand...

Not at all.
Evidence of curvature is, for example, the measurable drop of the visible horizon line from different altitudes. This observation is so consistent that it can be reliably used to calculate the radius of the earth, and this calculation is consistent with the results aquired from other, unrelated methods to calculate this radius. This is evidence.

Evidence of motion was even presented by Flat Earthers themselves... as an avid YouTube student you should be aware of Bob Knodel and his laser gyroscope test.
I admit that this is physics on a level beyond my knowledge, but obviously the Sagnac effect works and can be reliable used to show rotation.

What experiments? Every experiment ever done to detect/ measure motion has failed! Many big name scientists have expressly conceded this point. Quotes From Famous Scientists On Geocentrism : Geocentrism

Do you know something these boffins don't?

Click to expand...

I know not to quotemine, in the best cases. But even then you should be aware that a "geocentric" model still assumes a round earth.

Well the Klinkerbein example from WWII should get you thinking seriously. There Gerry used 2 intersecting beams and baffled the boys down at GCHQ. What's the problem?

Click to expand...

Not my area of expertise, I fear. But as most radar or microwave system include the curvature of the earth in their calculations, I assume that there isn't any major problem with that.
With the Knickebein system, for example, it worked only at heights, and not on lower elevations, exactly because of the curvature of the earth.

(And, just as a sidenote: if you use terms in a foreign language, try to get the correct terms. Also, try to not use derogatary terms when talking about other nationalities... you might end up speaking with one of them, and they might not be too positively inclined towards that. And, if you really need to use these terms, at least get them right.)

Have a look at some examples at this guy's channel. He's an engineer who uses infrared filters to get mega-long range stuff:
JTolan Media1

Click to expand...

I am aware of this channel. Perhaps you are also aware that his observations, for example of Mt. St. Jacinto are perfect examples FOR a globe earth, because the "hidden height" of the mountain fits perfectly with the calculations.

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...

Argumentum per YouTubem is fallacious. YouTube has an unfortunately high ratio of 'mistaken' (let's be charitable) to informative videos.

Personally, living on the north Kent coast, I've used good binoculars (and, on occasion, a telescope) to watch ships disappearing or appearing over the horizon in many different weather conditions, and I've watched the coast around Southend (across the estuary) appear and disappear according to weather conditions, and both situations are different in appearance and both are consistent with a curvature horizon. I've also travelled on ships and seen coastlines and other ships emerge from below the horizon, and I've flown in both easterly and westerly directions on aircraft to destinations as far as the other side of the world (e.g. Australia). Every time, the travel time, change in sun angle, star orientations & polar rotation, and the position of the moon and planets, have always been consistent with travel across a rotating oblate spheroid.

Personal experience alone refutes your claim, let alone the myriad everyday conveniences afforded by satellite technology, from GPS and weather to communications. If you'd tracked the paths of satellites, watched the ISS go by, or spotted the Iridium flares (there are plenty of sites giving such information, e.g. SatFlare), you'd find it hard to account for them other than by orbital mechanics. I'm guessing that you haven't, and predicting that you won't.

Shrewd Manager said:

Sure, a lot of these vids they run through the method while they're doing it, so you can see the measurement of the camera height above the water line for instance. The armchair lizard can generally estimate camera height anyway. We've been through this, you guys just love to obfuscate on these points for want of a real defence.

Click to expand...

Even rigorous scientific methodology can sometimes yield erroneous results. Why should we put our trust in some armchair yokel on YouTube ... ???

The case for a spherical earth is made while the flat earth fallacy is thoroughly exposed.
Is there a flat earther explanation for why there is no account of anybody reaching the rim of the disc-world?
There should be photos, breathless stories of being hauled back from the abyss, tales of ships getting just that bit too close and toppling into the void, aeroplanes over-shooting. Why don't the seas just drain away?
Could it be that there is a sort of retaining wall? What is it made of and why has nobody seen it - or climbed it and looked over it?

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...

Not perfect is an understatement. You don't even have a functional map.

Whyayeman said:

The case for a spherical earth is made while the flat earth fallacy is thoroughly exposed.
Is there a flat earther explanation for why there is no account of anybody reaching the rim of the disc-world?
There should be photos, breathless stories of being hauled back from the abyss, tales of ships getting just that bit too close and toppling into the void, aeroplanes over-shooting. Why don't the seas just drain away?
Could it be that there is a sort of retaining wall? What is it made of and why has nobody seen it - or climbed it and looked over it?

Click to expand...

Dontchaknow? The retaining wall is the so-called "Icewall" that the Globeheads call "Antarctica". Nobody has climbed it, because the UN fleet kills everyone who tries it.

United Nations has a fleet? Of ships? Well, I never!

The ice wall is protected my highly trained Polar Bears.

Lost4words said:

The ice wall is protected my highly trained Polar Bears.

Click to expand...

Don't silly! Polar bears are from the north. It's an army of mega penguins.

Shemjaza said:

Don't silly! Polar bears are from the north. It's an army of mega penguins.

Click to expand...

The enforcers of the Antarctic Treaty. Protecting precious tundra property.

46AND2 said:

Not perfect is an understatement. You don't even have a functional map.

Click to expand...

You are aware that every map, survey and nautical chart is first made on a flat surface? Not one piece of property, building, structure or feature has any earth curvature allowance in its measurement. So where is dat curve?

Shrewd Manager said:

You are aware that every map, survey and nautical chart is first made on a flat surface? Not one piece of property, building, structure or feature has any curvature allowance in its measurement. Where is da curve?

Click to expand...

Even if that's true, so what? If the earth was flat, you should be able to make a 2D representation of it...a map. The fact that 2D representations don't match ACTUAL distances is quite simply because any 2D representation of a sphere is going to have distortion.

The fact that a globe, at scale, can accurately represent ACTUAL measured distances is a big problem for flat-earthers.

And my point still remains....you don't even have a functional map...which should be trivially easy for a flat earth.

Besides, you are wrong. Go to Google maps and look at the border between Manitoba and Saskatchewan. When you are zoomed out, it looks like a straight line, but as you zoom in, you'll see that it zig-zags every so often. These are correction lines...and it's due to earth's curvature correction. Google "correction lines."

Shrewd Manager said:

You are aware that every map, survey and nautical chart is first made on a flat surface? Not one piece of property, building, structure or feature has any earth curvature allowance in its measurement. So where is dat curve?

Click to expand...

Oh yeah....and IF what you say is true, you should have a functional map! All you'd have to do is piece all those smaller maps together. So why dat distortion?

Shrewd Manager said:

Not one piece of property, building, structure or feature has any earth curvature allowance in its measurement. So where is dat curve?

Click to expand...

Trivially wrong, yet again.

"One well documented exception is the Verrazano-Narrows bridge, whose design took into account that the bridge towers are 1 5/8 inch farther apart at the top than at the bottom. In this post, I will show how to compute this value.

The calculations here are straightforward. My intent is to show that there are some structures that must take the Earth's curvature into account. There are two other examples that I know of: Stanford Linear Accelerator (Source), and Fermilab's neutrino communication experiments (Source). "

Effect of Earth's Curvature on Suspension Bridge Dimensions

Its always entertaining to see FE believers posts.