Horizon means 'boundary'. Horizontal means 'parallel to the horizon'. Later in the 17th C horizontal gained 'flat' as a meaning. Horizon has never translated to 'flat' and even translated in reference to a 'bounding (circle)' in Ancient Greek: 'horizōn (kuklos)'.

In reference to the oil rig image. Observations very close to see level are always subject to atmospheric effects.
In this instance, given I suspect the rigs are not made of jelly I can only conclude severe atmospheric affects are in place. Severe refraction can explain that observation in reference to curvature etc just fine. Though that is degenerate with a flat earth observation (If you ignore that the closer rig is slightly behind the curve in the 1ft observation, as expected).

If you ignore this then I would be interested to see images taken on other days, especially at different temperatures, with minimal atmospheric effects

It's hard to claim a distinctive conclusion from only one case.

Particularly with the degeneracy (Though again with the caviat that you can make out where the horizon actually is in the 1ft vs 35ft images)

This angle and image are perfectly reasonable from an orbit around the moon

"You're not allowed refraction" is not a disproof of refraction...

That's just untrue

Not sure how a physical horizon without refraction as a concept disproves the real horizon which has numerous refractive properties 🤔

If by flat you mean a misunderstanding of basic optics

Well ok not basic optics, as it's tricky

Where's this?

So your link states: "we neglect the refraction of light in the atmosphere, which may increase this value" btw

Given refraction depends on the temperature gradient, being over ice does not negate refraction. In fact refraction can be extreme in arctic regions where the atmosphere can be much much warmer than the ocean or ice

Because?

I'm not sure what your point is?

There's a geometric horizon because the earth is round, and also there is refraction, therefore the actual location is distorted/you get weird optical effects

Indeed

I mean, the horizon is obervably different to the vanishing point, so no actually only impossible if the earth is flat.

Says the person ignoring refraction 🤔

With high refraction you can see 10 miles at 6 inches. If you use the globe earth curve calculator.

Do you need to be verified to share images?

Cheers - two secs

Sent

Thanks

Less a point about the land, more a point that the parralel lines are converging beyond the horizon

Except the tree lines are not parallel

Along the buildings? 🤔

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Advanced+Earth+Curvature+Calculator

Playing with this

Also by definition of convergence the height of the buildings don't matte4

Vacuums don't affect lasers. In fact they work better in a vacuum

A big one

Realistically though, afaik only the Moon is within lasering distance. And that's also by using the reflector on the surface .

G'night!

Intensity decreases with distance (as no laser is perfect)

Indeed

Indeed. Flat Earth cannot have gravity as a thing because you'd experience a different angle depending on how far north/south you are. As at the edge of a disc, you'll be pulled toward the centre, not downwards

Afaik "things find their own level" due to "density" and "down is down"

Also this, forgive me if I'm wrong

G'night

Or lack of resistance force

I spoke to Flat Earth Aussie Jesus once but he couldn't explain what the resistance force was resisting exactly

Traditionally the resistance force is the name given to whatever is resisting gravity or similar

So the EM repulsion between your electrons and those in your chair provide a resistance force balanced with the force you experience due to gravity

If it was more you'd find yourself floating upwards, if it was less the chair would break

Indeed, that's the established theory. When resolving mechanical problems on earth, there's usually a 'resistance' component involved. As stuff isn't falling through the surface of the earth

So when something, for example, floats on water, the buoyancy force is the dominant resistance force to gravity, stopping the object from sinking further

From the objects point of view it feels no net force, as gravity and the resistance force are balanced

When it comes to buoyancy, the buoyancy force is dependant on the volume of medium (e.g. water) displaced by an object. A dence object, like a bowling ball, displaces less mass of water than it's own mass. Therefore the buoyancy force would be less than gravity. So it will sink until something balances out the forces (such as hitting the seabed)

An aircraft carrier, though more massive than the bowling ball, will displace a greater mass of water than it's own mass. In this case the buoyancy force will be sufficient to balance gravity.

You can then work out how much of the carrier should be submerged in order to balance forces but it's very late/early so don't want to give the wrong information accidently

Well, a granite boulder then. But yeah.

Ah see that's the thing. The resistance force is /resisting/ gravity

Without gravity there'd be no force to propel things in a certain direction.

Ohhh yes sorry

Afaik yes from those I've spoken to, though I can't speak for those in this server (heck I'm a glober anyway so what do I know?)

It's good to be curious.

I need to go to bed but if you have any more questions feel free to message me and I'll answer them tomorrow

No worries, take care

You can't prove that as the density of the medium is the same sideways also.

Deary me

Why would a straight edged shadow curve 🤔

Easy to see in the bottom right image of the thing just linked tbh

@Citizen Z Ok, but you can only see that when looking from the side? That's basic geometry.

@Citizen Z Yeeeess....

@Juicy J The constellations do, and have, changed over time. E.g. the star signs in astrology are in fact wrong in the modern day due to the motion on the Earth over hundreds of years. You'll find that your constellation is out by one (e.g. I apparently should be a Cancer but in reality the sun was in constellation Gemini).

@Flat Earth PhD You need to know what lens your camera is using to image the horizon. If you minimise any bending from the camera lens, you can observe the curve by compressing the image sideways to make it more noticible. Interestingly, you can see the effect cameras have on the horizon/images in general by doing this to random images picked off of Google. You will find you can see the curve in some. Some appear flat. But also some with an inverse curve.

This can be tested using a camera where you have tested the affect its lens has on an object you know to be straight.

@Trixxle Not in this case, i'm referring to the astrological star signs (Cancer, Gemini, Taurus etc)

Also further proof not to trust astrology...the star signs are wrong

Wat.jpg

Given the rest of my comment...yes most likely...

Boy oh boy

Ugh this again

What was the point this exactly?

Yeah

Already debunked that about 100 times.

If only there were some kind of optical effect whereby light is distorted by the atmosphere such that it may appear to bend around a curve 🤔

Well, I suppose technically 🤓 a model is just some construct. However if your model fits observations and can be tested as well as can make predictions for observations, which are, correct, then your model is likely correct.

spr smrt

That's a lot of qis

What point are you trying to make here?

If there was no atmosphere then sure, you ave a point. But sadly we aren't all suffocating to death.

Flat eater? Well it was pancake day recently...

Oil rig image has been debunked also

Again with the nonsensicle link...

Do you actually have any useful points to make @Logrian? You seem to post the same debunked images/video and the horizon nonsense without explenation every day.

Refraction can explain both the ice video and the oil rig image

It's most clear in the oil rig image as you can see how distorted the farther rig is. This suggests a large amount of atmospheric distortion is in effect.

Using one of the earth curve calculators which has a perscription for refraction, you can apply a high level of refraction and find that the viewing distance at the heights mentioned in the full video are reasonable

I'm not saying its the very extreme refractive case, but if you plug, say, 6 inches into one of these calculators and put the refraction to maximum (so the maximum limit) your viewing distance of a 1 ft high object can be at least 10 miles (I could have tested exactly how far with max refraction in that model but I figure 10 miles was sufficient to make the point).

Exactly.

Exactly

If you saw an oil rig due to refraction, you are seeing a guess a 'false image' of it. The image of the rig is a mirage in itself

There are many types of mirage. I want to say (off the top of my head) refraction causes a superior mirage

But your right that mirages as a thing don't have anything to do with the shape of the earth, and would happen on both. However, specifically mirages can have the effect of allowing one to see further than one would expect given the curvature of the earth.

Which is why one has to be careful using observations very close to the surface where refraction will be at its greatest.

I'm not sure what you mean, sorry

No worries

If you're sure, though I do try to listen to people's points rather than mock them.