Is Earth round or flat ?

[rattlesnake]

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Actually - thats exactly what refraction 'over water' can do... 

 

 

Key Principles of Refraction Over Water

 

Light Bending Due to Temperature Gradients

The atmosphere is not uniform; its density changes with altitude.

Over water, air near the surface is often cooler than the air above (especially in warm conditions). This creates a temperature gradient.

Light bends towards the denser (cooler) air, which means it curves downward, allowing us to see objects that would normally be below the geometric horizon.

 

Superior Mirage Effect

When the air near the surface is cooler than the air above, light rays bend downward, making distant objects appear higher than they actually are.

This is called a superior mirage, and it can make ships, landmasses, or even celestial bodies (like the sun) visible when they should be geometrically below the horizon.

 

Looming

A specific type of refraction where objects below the horizon appear lifted up.

This occurs when the temperature gradient is strong, and light follows a curved path, making the object visible despite being "hidden" by the Earth's curvature.

 

Ducting & Fata Morgana

In extreme cases, strong temperature inversions (where warm air sits above cool air) can trap light in a curved path, creating a "ducting" effect.

This can make objects appear stretched, distorted, or even duplicated.

 

Real-World Examples

Ships appearing to "float" above the horizon.

The sun setting later than expected.

Distant islands becoming visible in conditions of strong refraction.

 

 

This diagram below illustrates how refraction can make an object below the horizon visible. The curved light path (in orange) bends due to atmospheric refraction, allowing the observer to see the object that would normally be hidden.

 

 

The flaw in this argument is that if the visible Chicago skyline were really an illusion caused by refraction, then variations in temperature and atmospheric composition would result in proportionate changes to the apparent height of Chicago above or below the horizon, i.e. it would vary in appearance and sometimes not even be apparent at all.

However it is established and verifiable by anyone that the Chicago skyline remains fixed and visible from Grand Mere State Park, with no variations in appearance.

[rattlesnake]

5 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Wow!

 

Can see things 100 metres below the surface?! I'm getting an education on this curvy earth stuff..

 

There is an explanation for everything according to "science". The one test it fails, though, is the sensory test. When you think about it, it is a tricky balancing act to perpetually convince people that what is actually happening is the opposite of what their elementary senses are telling them.

[Stiddle Mump]

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

There is an explanation for everything according to "science". The one test it fails, though, is the sensory test. When you think about it, it is a tricky balancing act to perpetually convince people that what is actually happening is the opposite of what their elementary senses are telling them.

Indeed Rattles.

 

Bit like when Groucho Marx's wife comes home and finds him in bed with his secretary. She storms out. Later they meet up and Groucho says; ''Nothing happened. Do you believe me or your own eyes?''

[gamb00ler]

14 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Wow!

 

Can see things 100 metres below the surface?! I'm getting an education on this curvy earth stuff..

when learning something you need to get the terminology correct...

 

things are not "below the surface" .... they are below the unrefracted line of sight.

[Stiddle Mump]

46 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

when learning something you need to get the terminology correct...

 

things are not "below the surface" .... they are below the unrefracted line of sight.

Great post Mr Gamb00ler. Even at my age I'm still willing to learn.

For me, this topic is somewhat a barometer. I started off thinking that the earth could be round, and then, I read @rattlesnakeand because he certainly knows his stuff, the pendulum swung; and I was 50/50. Then @richard_smith237posts. His arguments were/are very convincing and I went 60/40. in favour of a round earth. But!! The pics Rattles put up are the nuts. So I'm now 40/60.

 

If someone could tell me why a plane can't fly round the coast of Antarctica, it might sort it for me. Or/and, if we drilled a hole through one ocean, say the Atlantic, would all the water pour through it? Into where? Outer space? Maybe inner space!

 

It's a complicated subject alright.

[harryviking]

You just have to be very ignorant and dumb to believe the world is flat!😆

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

If someone could tell me why a plane can't fly round the coast of Antarctica, it might sort it for me. Or/and, if we drilled a hole through one ocean, say the Atlantic, would all the water pour through it? Into where? Outer space? Maybe inner space!

 

It's a complicated subject alright.

 

I know it's somewhat of an oxymoron considering the subject, but we have to at least try and keep this somewhat 'intelligent' lest we go down the rabbit-hole of complete absurdity.

 

 

So... given your question...  If the Earth were flat and had a hole, ignoring temperatures and all the other physical science - for the sake of discussion only....  water would initially pour through due to gravity. However, with equal gravitational forces pulling from all directions, the water would start to pool and form a hemispherical shape around the hole. This would occur because gravity would act symmetrically, pulling water equally from all sides towards the centre of mass...  

 

Now imagine that all the 'hard stuff' rocks, the earths mantle, the core is either molten or *plastic... those same symmetrical gravitational forces naturally pulls matter into the most stable, energy-efficient form due to equal attraction in all directions.

 

This self-rounding process is why celestial bodies above a certain mass, including planets, naturally form spherical shapes, the earth is no different.

 

 

 

(*in the deformation sense, not petrochemical - That I need to highlight this is a testament to the staggering level of ignorance I'm presenting an argument against here).

 

 

 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I know it's somewhat of an oxymoron considering the subject, but we have to at least try and keep this somewhat 'intelligent' lest we go down the rabbit-hole of complete absurdity.

 

So... given your question...  If the Earth were flat and had a hole, ignoring temperatures and all the other physical science - for the sake of discussion only....  water would initially pour through due to gravity. However, with equal gravitational forces pulling from all directions, the water would start to pool and form a hemispherical shape around the hole. This would occur because gravity would act symmetrically, pulling water equally from all sides towards the centre of mass...  

 

Now imagine that all the 'hard stuff' rocks, the earths mantle, the core is either molten or *plastic... those same symmetrical gravitational forces naturally pulls matter into the most stable, energy-efficient form due to equal attraction in all directions.

 

This self-rounding process is why celestial bodies above a certain mass, including planets, naturally form spherical shapes, the earth is no different.

 

(*in the deformation sense, not petrochemical - That I need to highlight this is a testament to the staggering level of ignorance I'm presenting an argument against here).

 

 

Wow!! Very persuasive arguments there Richard. You certainly know your stuff.

 

Only one thing. If the earth was flat, would not gravity be irrelevant? I'm not knowledgeable to answer that, but I do like Bernoulli's theorem.

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:

 

Wow!! Very persuasive arguments there Richard. You certainly know your stuff.

 

Only one thing. If the earth was flat, would not gravity be irrelevant? I'm not knowledgeable to answer that, but I do like Bernoulli's theorem.

 

If mass were not attracted to mass (gravity) why would water 'want' to flow down the hole in the first place ? what attracts it ?  - would the water not float off into space ?

 

 

[Stiddle Mump]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

If mass were not attracted to mass (gravity) why would water 'want' to flow down the hole in the first place ? what attracts it ?  - would the water not float off into space ?

 

Of course the water would flow down the hole.

 

I think the barrier in thinking here, is that the earth turns around itself. A flat earth would stay flat all the time. It would have to or we would all be gonners when it turned upside down.

 

I'm not an expert on this at all. I'm on the thread to glean information from knowledgeable posters like you and Rattlesnake. I am forever inquisitive about things we take for granted.

 

But!!

 

There are over one billion (billion not million) who think the world is flat. Although many believe it is more akin to a watermelon cut in half. Cut a third of the way across; more likely. Flat side up; obviously. And the underside is also a bit of a mystery. Not necessarily smooth. Maybe jiggerdy-jaggerdy. Any thoughts on that Richard?

[gamb00ler]

4 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

If someone could tell me why a plane can't fly round the coast of Antarctica

why do you believe that such a flight is not possible?