Is the Earth Flat?

[Shrewd Manager]

If the earth was flat, the horizon would rise to eye level no matter what altitude you view from.
Using a water level to determine eye level, the horizon is increasingly below eye level the higher the altitude you view from, consistent with the earth being a sphere.

Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat
Absolute proof.. can't deny.. the earth is flat

I'm not sure what that's supposed to be demonstrating. Are you suggesting that if I lift my eye-level from table height the table should stay at eye-level? Someone may need a visit to the eye doctor, Prodromos.

 

[d taylor]

I'm not sure what that's supposed to be demonstrating. Are you suggesting that if I lift my eye-level from table height the table should stay at eye-level? Someone may need a visit to the eye doctor, Prodromos.

It is one of those science tricks that will keep people believing in nonsense.

Take a smaller level device and a large flat table and do the same thing as the video by raising the level up a little at a time and i am sure the same results would happen. With the edge of the table, it would also drop below the level line of sight.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

It is one of those science tricks that will keep people believing in nonsense.

Take a smaller level device and a large flat table and do the same thing as the video by raising the level up a little at a time and i am sure the same results would happen. With the edge of the table, it would also drop below the level line of sight.

Of course, it's a silly strawman claim. And again, unscientific, because (according to the globers) there's nowhere on earth to compare this to, so there's no control or benchmark for the experiment. A bit like the gravity arguments.

 

[prodromos]

It is one of those science tricks that will keep people believing in nonsense.

Take a smaller level device and a large flat table and do the same thing as the video by raising the level up a little at a time and i am sure the same results would happen. With the edge of the table, it would also drop below the level line of sight.

Suggesting that this will be apparent on the short scale when we are describing the effect of viewing on the long scale demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation on your part.

If you and Shrewd Manager stood at each end of a 10 mile long table you would each appear to the other as a dot because of the effect of perspective. If both of you are standing on the top of 600 foot buildings 200 miles apart, the building in the distance would appear as a dot. The same if you were both on the top of mountains 2000 miles apart. On a flat earth the horizon will always appear at eye level no matter how high up you go. Parallel lines all appear to converge at the vanishing point.

On a globe, the higher you go, the lower the horizon drops below eye level. This is exactly what we observe, thus the earth is a globe.

 

[JacksBratt]

Suggesting that this will be apparent on the short scale when we are describing the effect of viewing on the long scale demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation on your part.

If you and Shrewd Manager stood at each end of a 10 mile long table you would each appear to the other as a dot because of the effect of perspective. If both of you are standing on the top of 600 foot buildings 200 miles apart, the building in the distance would appear as a dot. The same if you were both on the top of mountains 2000 miles apart. On a flat earth the horizon will always appear at eye level no matter how high up you go. Parallel lines all appear to converge at the vanishing point.

On a globe, the higher you go, the lower the horizon drops below eye level. This is exactly what we observe, thus the earth is a globe.

There is a plain and simple truth. Many times it has been proven that things are visible at distances that would mathematically place them beyond and below the curve of the earth if it is the size that science tells us.

 

[prodromos]

There is a plain and simple truth. Many times it has been proven that things are visible at distances that would mathematically place them beyond and below the curve of the earth if it is the size that science tells us.

And time and time again that has been demonstrated to be due to atmospheric conditions causing refraction. Some days you can see further, some days you can't. Surveyors have to take it in to account when sighting elevations over long distances.

 

[d taylor]

Suggesting that this will be apparent on the short scale when we are describing the effect of viewing on the long scale demonstrates either a complete lack of understanding or deliberate obfuscation on your part.

If you and Shrewd Manager stood at each end of a 10 mile long table you would each appear to the other as a dot because of the effect of perspective. If both of you are standing on the top of 600 foot buildings 200 miles apart, the building in the distance would appear as a dot. The same if you were both on the top of mountains 2000 miles apart. On a flat earth the horizon will always appear at eye level no matter how high up you go. Parallel lines all appear to converge at the vanishing point.

On a globe, the higher you go, the lower the horizon drops below eye level. This is exactly what we observe, thus the earth is a globe.

It would not as a humans eye site ability is not unlimited, we can only see so far. But the site line from the level goes on indefinitely in a straight line, way past our limited eye site ability.

 

[prodromos]

It would not as a humans eye site ability is not unlimited, we can only see so far. But the site line from the level goes on indefinitely in a straight line, way past our limited eye site ability.

We can all see a distinct line where the sky meets the land/sea in clear weather. It doesn't turn into a hazy blur. Certainly our eyes lack the resolution to discern relatively small objects at large distances, but there is no distance limit to our eyesight. As long as light can reach our eyes, we can see things,

 

[Shrewd Manager]

On a flat earth the horizon will always appear at eye level no matter how high up you go. Parallel lines all appear to converge at the vanishing point.

You still haven't proved that the vanishing point must always be at eye-level on a flat surface. That seems to be your major premise. I don't mean to offend, but just your say-so isn't enough for me.

 

[JacksBratt]

And time and time again that has been demonstrated to be due to atmospheric conditions causing refraction. Some days you can see further, some days you can't. Surveyors have to take it in to account when sighting elevations over long distances.

Refraction is the only arrow that people use to discount the fact that we see too far for the globe.

It's not cutting it. These things that are visible are visible in all types of weather and atmospheric conditions. Refraction demands a certain conditions that cannot possibly account for all the sightings.

Refraction, from what I've heard, can even make the sun appear to be fully risen.

It's a go to argument.. that is not valid to the extent people want it to be. IMO

 

[prodromos]

Refraction is the only arrow that people use to discount the fact that we see too far for the globe.

Atmospheric refraction always occurs due to the pressure gradient of the atmosphere. Sometimes conditions make it more pronounced but it is always there.

It's not cutting it. These things that are visible are visible in all types of weather and atmospheric conditions. Refraction demands a certain conditions that cannot possibly account for all the sightings.

Your subjective opinion is noted and dismissed.

Refraction, from what I've heard, can even make the sun appear to be fully risen.

Presumeably it has been documented, including the prevailing weather conditions.

It's a go to argument.. that is not valid to the extent people want it to be. IMO

Again, your subjective opinion.

 

[prodromos]

You still haven't proved that the vanishing point must always be at eye-level on a flat surface. That seems to be your major premise. I don't mean to offend, but just your say-so isn't enough for me.

By all means, demonstrate how it is not the case.

Picture multiple layers of parallel planes all converging in this case on the vanishing line rather than the vanishing point. The vanishing line corresponds to the horizon. If you move your eye level to any one of those planes, you are still looking horizontal at that same vanishing line.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

By all means, demonstrate how it is not the case.

Picture multiple layers of parallel planes all converging in this case on the vanishing line rather than the vanishing point. The vanishing line corresponds to the horizon. If you move your eye level to any one of those planes, you are still looking horizontal at that same vanishing line.

Ok so the horizon is straight and not curved then? Right there you have an observational proof in the form of 1 of 3 axes that disproves your claim.

What you're giving me is just one more typical example of a mainstream scientism hypothesis that can't be disproven, because (according to your lot) there is never a stretch of provably flat ground on which to do it, ie no positive control.

Reminds me of all that Darwinian junk science, positing the necessity of a common human ape ancestor, but without any forensic evidence to sustain it.

So no thank you, you're making the assertion, you prove it, and not by 'thought experiments' please.

 

[prodromos]

Ok so the horizon is straight and not curved then?

Do you mind explaining further. Are you saying that the horizon is curved on a flat earth?

Right there you have an observational proof in the form of 1 of 3 axes that disproves your claim.

How so? You will need to unpack that statement a little more.

 

[JacksBratt]

Atmospheric refraction always occurs due to the pressure gradient of the atmosphere. Sometimes conditions make it more pronounced but it is always there.

OK, do ships always sail over the curve... or only when there is no refraction? The atmospheric conditions for the type of event you are leaning on, is specific.. The things that people see is constant.

Even when ships "sail over the curve" a good telephoto lense brings them right back into frame.

It's null and void as an argument. There are way too many cases to blame on refraction.

 

[prodromos]

OK, do ships always sail over the curve... or only when there is no refraction?

There is always refraction. Depending on conditions it can be more or less pronounced. I've already told you that surveyors have to take it into account when sighting elevations over long distances.

The atmospheric conditions for the type of event you are leaning on, is specific.. The things that people see is constant.

That is utterly false. From one day to another and at different times of the day, people across the lakes from Chicago or Ontario can see different amounts of the city skylines or not at all.

Even when ships "sail over the curve" a good telephoto lense brings them right back into frame.

This is total BS and has been proven false again and again.

It's null and void as an argument.

Your claims, yes.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Do you mind explaining further. Are you saying that the horizon is curved on a flat earth?

No, I was just answering to your thought experiment re converging parallel lines. Whereas if you're saying the horizon line sinks below eye-level with increasing altitude, that would likewise mean the alleged curve on the horizon would become increasingly apparent. Which it does not.

Even accepting for argument's sake that the horizon should remain at eye level, you'd want to do 100's of verified repeats of the experiment you showed, with full methodology explained in order to be taken seriously. I mean, anyone can tilt a glass, or can edit a photo. Or maybe your pal refraction might be at work.

Globers seem to think that all FE arguments can be hand-waved away by the production of one photo with someone holding up test tubes en plein air. Unfortunately it's typical of the kind of abdication of the scientific method that pervades science falsely so-called, from Darwin to Einstein, Pasteur to Fauci and beyond.

 

[prodromos]

No, I was just answering to your thought experiment re converging parallel lines. Whereas if you're saying the horizon line sinks below eye-level with increasing altitude, that would likewise mean the alleged curve on the horizon would become increasingly apparent. Which it does not.

The curve to the sides only becomes apparent at very high altitudes, but it does become apparent.

Even accepting for argument's sake that the horizon should remain at eye level, you'd want to do 100's of verified repeats of the experiment you showed, with full methodology explained in order to be taken seriously.

I've mentioned the Eratosthenes experiment before, where thousands of students around the world repeat the experiment Eratosthenes derived to determine the radius of the earth. There should be plenty of schools that lie roughly along the same line of longitude that their measurements will definitively prove either the flatness or the curvature of the earth. But I've challenged you guys to do a simple version of the same experiment in the USA to triangulate the position of the sun so you can prove once and for all that the sun is not millions of miles away but is actually relatively close, but you guys won't even bother doing that. Why should we waste our time travelling to places where we can take multiple sightings of the horizon from different elevations when you guys won't even bother doing something that doesn't even require you leave your backyard?

Globers seem to think that all FE arguments can be hand-waved away by the production of one photo with someone holding up test tubes en plein air. Unfortunately it's typical of the kind of abdication of the scientific method that pervades science falsely so-called, from Darwin to Einstein, Pasteur to Fauci and beyond.

I thought trigonometry was maths, not science.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The curve to the sides only becomes apparent at very high altitudes, but it does become apparent.

Based on the very significant drop in your meme there, at 120,000 ft there should be a pronounced concavity, but...

I've mentioned the Eratosthenes experiment before, where thousands of students around the world repeat the experiment Eratosthenes derived to determine the radius of the earth. There should be plenty of schools that lie roughly along the same line of longitude that their measurements will definitively prove either the flatness or the curvature of the earth.

Again, this is just an indirect and unverified once-off experiment that relies on all manner of inputs and assumptions.

But I've challenged you guys to do a simple version of the same experiment in the USA to triangulate the position of the sun so you can prove once and for all that the sun is not millions of miles away but is actually relatively close, but you guys won't even bother doing that.

Easier to triangulate using crepuscular sun rays.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/crepuscular-rays3.jpg

Why should we waste our time travelling to places where we can take multiple sightings of the horizon from different elevations when you guys won't even bother doing something that doesn't even require you leave your backyard?

You're only wasting your time if you don't document the experiment correctly (or at all, in this case).

Look, if the horizon is where the earth curves, we ought to see the shadow cast on to a band of clouds above our heads by the sun as it rises and sets. But (frustratingly for the globers) shadows behave exactly as per FE.

 

[prodromos]

Based on the very significant drop in your meme there, at 120,000 ft there should be a pronounced concavity, but...

Strawman fallacy. The math does not support your claim.

Easier to triangulate using crepuscular sun rays.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/crepuscular-rays3.jpg

Great! Get someone at each spot where the sun is hitting the ocean to get bearing and angle of elevation.

Look, if the horizon is where the earth curves, we ought to see the shadow cast on to a band of clouds above our heads by the sun as it rises and sets. But (frustratingly for the globers) shadows behave exactly as per FE.

What are you talking about? The clouds above our heads are lit by the sun well before it becomes visible on the ground at sunrise.