Debunking Flat Earth

[Lost4words]

That would be easily explained by perspective, possible a bit of lensing at the layer close to the horizon. You do know that it's where the word 'horizontal' as in 'level' as in 'water always finds its' comes from?

Do you read what you post?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Skeptic Investigates: Is the Earth Flat?

How Do Flat-Earthers Explain the Equinox? We Investigated.

Couple of good reads

I've a flat earth sun and moon clock app which seems to work ok.

The flat stationary earth model also worked for navigators since time immemorial. The astrolabe which triangulates position based on the stars is by all accounts a highly accurate and effective tool for those willing to learn the skill.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Do you read what you post?

Do you think I should I disembark now rover?

 

[Lost4words]

Do you think I should I disembark now rover?

Not very astute, dont you think?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That would be some superman refraction when we're talking about the long distance shots. Like 200+meters in some cases. The refraction allowance doesn't compensate.

I'm simply correcting the suggestion that Fata Morgana causes the apparent loss of the lower parts of objects as if below a horizon. It actually refers to the opposite effect.

 

[Strathos]

We can show consistent mathematical models to explain how refraction works. Flat earthers can't do the same for any of their explanations.

 

[Lost4words]

The amount of evidence i have seen given to flat earth believers via good scientific websites, articles, discussions and on here proving the earth is a globe and refuting a flat earth has been vast but always dismissed by them! Always!

I was interested in their arguments but when looked into they just fall apart MASSIVELY.

Their counter arguments are laughable.

Their answer to the setting sun argument is just one!

 

[A_Thinker]

That's it - flat, stationary, enclosed. Just as Gen 1 teaches.

You're speaking of (your view) of the earth.

How is it that you explain this image of the sun. I've never encountered a flat-earther who could do it ...

 

[A_Thinker]

That would be easily explained by perspective, possible a bit of lensing at the layer close to the horizon. You do know that it's where the word 'horizontal' as in 'level' as in 'water always finds its' comes from?

Then provide an explanation, instead of just throwing stuff at the wall ... to see if it sticks ...

 

[Jimmy D]

I'm not interested in getting sidetracked by this issue. The main game is that we can see much much further than we should as predicted by ball earth maths.

No, I’m sure you aren’t. Those photos of Toronto in the link I posted are entirely consistent with what we’d expect to see and the calculations back that up.

The Fata Morgana effect is obviously not an issue here, so how do you account for the observations?

Please don’t attempt to change the subject by bringing up EM waves or whatever, you were the one who brought up these vague optical illusions that fool everyone but flerfers.

 

[Shemjaza]

It sure is. Guess we've got our magic haze, you've got your superman refraction...

But seriously, there has been some effective research on the sunset question imho, I'll have to dig it up and come back to you.

Please find it.

I'd be interested in reading it.Other

flat Earth proponents have only been able to present mistakes or digressions.

That's it - flat, stationary, enclosed. Just as Gen 1 teaches.

Except that it isn't. With modern telecommunications you can see that the sun is in different parts of the sky at different times of day... and that's before you get into the problems of the scale of the southern hemisphere.

 

[Freodin]

That would be easily explained by perspective, possible a bit of lensing at the layer close to the horizon. You do know that it's where the word 'horizontal' as in 'level' as in 'water always finds its' comes from?

Well... no.
"Perspective" falls flat in this regard, because it cannot explain how you can see only part of a distant object.
"Lensing" would be a better explanation... but there's a little problem here, especially here with your version.
A "layer close to the horizon" (rather: close to the ground) can indeed result in refractive effects, called "mirages" or "Fata Morganas".
But in this case, the object is rather high up in the sky... several thousand kilometers according to Flat Earthers. So the usual atmospheric refraction cannot be responsible for the sunset effect.
You would need a very specific lense between observer and object, a lense that only exists between the exact position of the observer of the sunset and the sun, only at the exact time of the sunset. Also, a lense that consistently exists at sunset times, at all atmospheric conditions. Also, a lense that reliable and exactly results in a distortion so that under all conditions the sun is projected beneath the visible horizon.

If we were talking about evolution here, the creationists would consider the probability of such an occurance as evidence for a creator.

Do you think God fakes sunsets?

 

[jayem]

Try fata morgana for one. Also looming, and other miraging and refraction-type effects, due to evaporation and angular resolution.

Academic interest really, as the zoom function will retrieve that boat that looked as though it went over.

Believe whatever you like. You have nothing but pseudo-scientific jibber jabber. My wife is a birder and has a good 60X spotting scope. We've been on the eastern shore of Wisconsin as the Lake Michigan ferry departs. Zooming in on the ship unquestionably confirms its downward trajectory as it sails over the horizon. It's as certain as the day follows the night. Yet no matter how large your telescope, how much magnification it has, or how perfect the weather, you will never see Muskegon, MI. from the Milwaukee shoreline.

 

[Whyayeman]

Genesis? No mention of flatness anywhere in Bk 1. (Or globe shape either.) I wonder sometimes why these forced arguments (flat earth is by no means the only one) gain traction with a certain kind of Christian belief, and why Biblical references eventually creep in. Is it because anything that challenges the literal truth of the Bible must be shown to be wrong, even when the arguments are tortuous and strained.
The speculation in 'possible a bit of lensing' is an example. The regular passage of the sun across the sky, disappearance below the western horizon and its reappearance over the eastern horizon is a daily occurrence and is most obviously explained as the result of the earth's rotation. There could be no night and day if both the sun and the earth are fixed and static.
The mechanics of the orthodox view of an orbiting, rotating spherical earth are simple, observable and actually quite elegant. Our experience of day and night, the seasons, lunar and planetary motion are well explained with beautiful economy. This cannot be said for any version of a flat earth theory. Flat earth theory is unnecessarily complex. (Should we think about Morton's Fork here?)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I'm simply correcting the suggestion that Fata Morgana causes the apparent loss of the lower parts of objects as if below a horizon. It actually refers to the opposite effect.

Right, whatever that's called - the reverse fata morgana.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Please don’t attempt to change the subject by bringing up EM waves or whatever, you were the one who brought up these vague optical illusions that fool everyone but flerfers.

Nope. The ability to see much further that predicted by the globe model supersedes any finagling arguments as to what we see on the horizon. Yours is a myopic argument.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Please find it.

I'd be interested in reading it.Other

flat Earth proponents have only been able to present mistakes or digressions.

Ok I'll have to dig, not so easy since YT buried everything FE-related.

Except that it isn't. With modern telecommunications you can see that the sun is in different parts of the sky at different times of day... and that's before you get into the problems of the scale of the southern hemisphere.

Radio waves and other line of sight stuff like radar travel further than they should. How do you explain that?

 

[Whyayeman]

'Reverse fata morgana'? That is just made up and in any case, the opposite of Shrewd Manager's previous post. It is a perfect example of a conclusion forcing the argument.
We can consider this properly disposed of.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

But in this case, the object is rather high up in the sky... several thousand kilometers according to Flat Earthers. So the usual atmospheric refraction cannot be responsible for the sunset effect.

It's apparent height is minimal, that's where the effect takes place, in the eye of the beholder.

Also, a lense that reliable and exactly results in a distortion so that under all conditions the sun is projected beneath the visible horizon.

No, just a layer ought to do it. *lens.

Do you think God fakes sunsets?

I think the existence of the dome creates various effects of which science hasn't pinpointed, because we've been working with the wrong model. Sundogs, rainbows and the like, all of which can be experimentally reproduced in a snowglobe.

 

[Whyayeman]

Radio waves and other line of sight stuff like radar travel further than they should. How do you explain that?

I think Shrewd Manager is assuming that all electromagnetic radiation travels in straight lines. This is not correct - the longer the wavelength the less true it is, in fact. This is why long-wave radio was (and still is to some extent) used in naval communications - it bends.