Though I do have to go to work soon

People can be weird

I'd use a stronger term but I fear the automatic filter would get me 😛

Exactly

No point doing that. Or spamming. Just pointlessly creaming into the void at that point.

*screaming o.o

oh no

Eh, still works I gues....

0

Oops, ignore that, was wiping the keyboard.

I hear there's good stuff in there.

The earliest measurments proving a spherical Earth predated the Bible iirc

Thooouuugh if memory serves the references to a flat Earth are in the older sections

But ofc there's also the caviat that the Bible has been translated and revised numerous times over the last 2000 years

Indeed

I feel like you must have a bot set up to periodically post that 😂

Source?

Still no idea what your obsession with the geometric horizon is

The model has a physical horizon and the atmosphere. The physical horizon is pretty much never observed due to the presence of the atmosphere.

I'm sorry we must be having different conversations

But I'll humour you

You can see ships disappear over the horizon, sure. It will almost definitely not at the distance it should be

Indeed. The less atmospheric interference the closer to the geo.etric horizon your observations will be

*geometric

Hence why, for example, on one day you can see both rigs when conditions allow for a lot of refraction, and on another day when conditions are not good for refraction you'll see an image similar to that linked by Musko where one is hidden partially by the geometric horizon

Approx 3 miles iirc

You're the only one of us claiming we see the geometric horizon 100% of the time...

Beside, refracted or not both are physical

In relation to being based on physics

And I'm saying that is not correct for the reasons I've stated

Refraction is just an optical effect from the properties of a medium, horizon or no.

Refraction is dependent on temperature densities, air composition and moisture competition, not direct what the ground is made of

*content. Sorry, suck at typing on mobile

Actually you can retract beyond 10 miles with extreme refraction at 6 inches. You can check this using a curve calculation website

*refract

I'm also not sure what refraction has to do with working on a physical horizon or not. If refraction is an observer effect, it can bend light around a curve and project an image of an object normally hidden behind a geometric horizon. I suppose you could call a refracted, 'apparent' horizon a virtual one, but I don't see how that matters

Sure. Fill a glass of water and look at how refraction bend the light when looking at it from the side. There you go.

Refraction around a curved surface, much more curved than the earth

That there, is a flat surface

Humour me a second. Imagine you were looking through the perspex.

You would see the light source, correct?

The light source would appear to be in front of you. From your perspective, dead ahead, yes?

Yes it is. But are we in agreement?

So looking at the shells law image, I'm asking you to imagine you're stood in the perspex, looking at the light source

Also this ^

Not as much as you'd think

Ok, so according this, with inputs of 0.5 ft observer height, and 2ft object height, to see the light at 8 miles (requiring only 1.9 ft of he object to be hidden) the refraction coefficient is about 0.876

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

Apparently

Starting to feel similar tbh

I'm not sure what you mean by that question. The curvature is more or less the same everywhere.

Ahh

Anyway my lunch break is over, take care all

Isn't that the magnetic pole there?

Cringe

Though dank for sure

Pretty sure Ranty filmed an egg and a model with his camera at opposite ends of a running track, which are built to be as flat a possible, on a live stream. He didn't observe any loss from either object.

Genuine question (with followup). The moon in the flat earth model has been said to be close/local. Have any distance estimated been made?

Ok. So the followup question is: why is there only an extremely small change in viewing angle of the moon when travelling in latitude (or indeed as the moon passes overhead)?

Not referring to size, referring why you can see the same face

So there's no current explanation for why you'd see the same face?

Yeah

Not a physical object?

I see...

Why do you think that?

I'm not sure I follow, could you elaborate?

Indeed

Yeah

Some of the hypothesis include 'time' as something that needed to form, so a 'begining'isn't a relevant question in that model

Also bare in mind that that's one of the very edges of understanding, so naturally there'll be things which don't make sense

What makes you say spacetime doesn't exist?

Lol, sorry for repeat

Oof

Theoretical physicists haven't 'failed'. I'm Not sure why you'd think that

All physics was theorised once.

So am I right in thinking your prejudice is less to do with substance and more to do with 'it sounds mad!'?

..no one has ever claimed that

Yeah

Well, no one reputable

Evolution has lots of evidence, so not sure where you got that from

I feel like that's a problem with the institutions, rather than the actual science itself...

Given engineering is physics, I'm not sure how that logic follows

Back to FE then

You trust engineering, yes?

And engineering uses gravity, yes?

Morbid fascination

That mountain image is a bit fishy with the numbers

If you put the obs and target heights into the curve calculator you get results similar to the image. With/Without refraction

I have taken picture of what I mean from my screen but cant post them

Sorry they're not screenshots

There we go. Been a long day

I don't follow?

Ahh no this is the mountain image not the rigs

If there's no refraction

@He Cute Not quite clear what your up and down directions are here.

@Flat Earth PhD If you look up how the blue marble is made you'll see that the cloud is added on. In fact you can download the cloud as a seperate file. It's not related to the satellite images.

You can literally look it up lol

Because the photos from the satellites don't include cloud by the looks.