1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

A word on my response to your ten commandments of science?

You don't read well.

15 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

If you go look at the YTube video at the 4:02 point where the image you presented occurs... the altimeter in the top right corner indicates 32,800 ft.

And according to google:

At 35-40k ft you may see a slight curve, but it is very faint. The horizon often appears flat due to the small field of view.

First seconds of the video, 46,000 feet.

3 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

You don't read well.

Exactly, you can't say anything so resort to cheap ad hominem, adding this to the ever-increasing pile of ignored uncomfortable facts.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I have no recollection of seeing it. What's your point?

If the world were flat, you'd be able to see it, and the pilot would point it out.

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

If the world were flat, you'd be able to see it, and the pilot would point it out.

Objects disappear in the distance, not because they are hidden by the purported curvature, but because of an elementary perspective phenomenon called the vanishing point.

Here is a more concrete case study.

In the below picture of Chicago, the buildings are 50 miles away. According to the well-established globe model formula, over a distance of 10 miles (16.1 km), the drop is about 66.7 feet (20.3 m). So over a distance of 50 miles, that’s a drop of over 100 m. The smaller buildings should not be visible at all, yet they are (at any time throughout the year, so atmospheric phenomenons such as refraction or Fata Morgana, which are temporary, are not valid explanations).

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

My premise is that satellites orbiting the Earth don't exist. I will immediately abandon this premise if it is demonstrated to be false.

The satellites visible from Earth are attached to helium balloons.

You have to admit it's a big call. Sputnik happens. No government says it's fake when there would be a huge motivation to do so. Then Explorer 1 . Telstar. Suddenly communications opens up. No government says it's fake. All balloons. Hmmm. It's an awfully big conspiracy.

5 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:

Well that's the way it is Sir.

Some can see right through it all. Other are blind sheep.

None so blind as those who will not see.

But satelites are real though. That doesn't seem to be your thing. So we can agree that Rattlesnake is way off there. Thanks.

3 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

You have to admit it's a big call. Sputnik happens. No government says it's fake when there would be a huge motivation to do so. Then Explorer 1 . Telstar. Suddenly communications opens up. No government says it's fake. All balloons. Hmmm. It's an awfully big conspiracy.

The Russians have their share of the 'space conquest', they sent the first man in space, the first dog in space, first satellite… Their space program played a big role in the USSR's position and prominence during the Cold War. The argument that they would blow the whistle about it if it were fake is invalid.

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But satelites are real though. That doesn't seem to be your thing. So we can agree that Rattlesnake is way off there. Thanks.

Satelites are real enough; so I'm told. But I've never seen one.

There was a post earlier that showed a liner upside down. Just can't get me head round that. How can that be? Don't forget Fatz, we have been lied to, on about just about everything. Just have to read the BBC www to see that.

Rattles is as far away from the sheep pen as it's possible to get.

4 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But satelites are real though. That doesn't seem to be your thing. So we can agree that Rattlesnake is way off there. Thanks.

The only thing you can verify as real are the balloon-powered contraptions you occasionally see from the ground. Some lucky folk also see them up close when mishaps happen.

By the way, NASA does not deny the existence of these contraptions and is a big consumer of helium as part of its program.

22 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Objects disappear in the distance, not because they are hidden by the purported curvature, but because of an elementary perspective phenomenon called the vanishing point.

Here is a more concrete case study.

In the below picture of Chicago, the buildings are 50 miles away. According to the well-established globe model formula, over a distance of 10 miles (16.1 km), the drop is about 66.7 feet (20.3 m). So over a distance of 50 miles, that’s a drop of over 100 m. The smaller buildings should not be visible at all, yet they are (at any time throughout the year, so atmospheric phenomenons such as refraction or Fata Morgana, which are temporary, are not valid explanations).

No, the drop is not linear. The curve drops about 8 inches per mile squared, so at 10 miles, the drop is 800 inches, or about 20 meters.

The ten tallest buildings in Chicago are: 442, 432, 363, 346, 343, 307, 303, 295, 293 & 273 meters high.

So even with your BS "well-established globe model formula" for liberal arts majors, they would all be clearly visible.

But in fact, everything over five stories would be visible.

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, the drop is not linear. The curve drops about 8 inches per mile squared, so at 10 miles, the drop is 800 inches, or about 20 meters.

Thank you for confirming what I have just said. 50 miles = 100 metres. In fact the exact distance is 55 miles in this case.

This Chicago skyline issue has been debated a lot, the official explanation that the globe proponents hold onto is that it is due to a mirage. This neglects, of course, that mirages vary according to the time of day and atmospheric conditions, whereas this skyline is visible at any time of the year without variation.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

A word on my response to your ten commandments of science?

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

You don't read well.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Exactly, you can't say anything so resort to cheap ad hominem, adding this to the ever-increasing pile of ignored uncomfortable facts.

You (and the moderators) can't handle the truth!

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Thank you for confirming what I have just said. 50 miles = 100 metres. In fact the exact distance is 55 miles in this case.

This Chicago skyline issue has been debated a lot, the official explanation that the globe proponents hold onto is that it is due to a mirage. This neglects, of course, that mirages vary according to the time of day and atmospheric conditions, whereas this skyline is visible at at any time of the year without variation.

No, 50 miles would be 500 meters

But if the Earth were flat, you'd see all the buildings, and every boat on the lake.

The Bedford Level Experiment

The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Old Bedford River on the Bedford Level, Norfolk, England. The experiment was often performed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Most results have served to prove Flat Earth Theory, and although a few have claimed otherwise they have been soundly disproved by Flat Earthers. The Bedford Level Experiment remains one of the most widely-accepted examples of Flat Earth proof.

Method

At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was understood to follow any hypothetical curvature of the Earth, the observation that the three poles aligned perfectly when observed through a theodolite serves as evidence of a flat Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, 50 miles would be 500 meters

You said:

39 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, the drop is not linear. The curve drops about 8 inches per mile squared, so at 10 miles, the drop is 800 inches, or about 20 meters.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

You don't read well.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

Exactly, you can't say anything so resort to cheap ad hominem, adding this to the ever-increasing pile of ignored uncomfortable facts.

A little summary:

You erroneously argued that 'remarkably difficult' actually meant that the choice between two differing explanations had not been resolved. In fact the phrase confirms the opposite, otherwise how would the author understand how difficult the choice really is.

You failed to understand that a post was allegorical and insisted it was instead an analogy. They are somewhat similar but even a high school level reader would not make the same mistake.

There's a decent chance you'll falter on this post as well.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You said:

That's exactly what I said.

That you do not understand basic arithmetic explains a lot.

55 X 55 x 6in X 25.4mm/in X 1m/1000mm = 460m, not 100

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

That's exactly what I said.

That you do not understand basic arithmetic explains a lot.

55 X 55 x 6in X 25.4mm/in X 1m/1000mm = 460m, not 100

You are absolutely correct, my bad. I had copied over some elements from another conversation I had with a guy who used his own formula but it wasn't 8 inches per mile squared. My apologies.

17 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

A little summary:

You erroneously argued that 'remarkably difficult' actually meant that the choice between two differing explanations had not been resolved. In fact the phrase confirms the opposite, otherwise how would the author understand how difficult the choice really is.

You failed to understand that a post was allegorical and insisted it was instead an analogy. They are somewhat similar but even a high school level reader would not make the same mistake.

There's a decent chance you'll falter on this post as well.

That's weak, honestly. I gave you some concrete elements in my response to your ten commandments and you are invoking some past statements (which I already addressed and will not address here) to avoid answering.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

The Bedford Level Experiment

The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Old Bedford River on the Bedford Level, Norfolk, England. The experiment was often performed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Most results have served to prove Flat Earth Theory, and although a few have claimed otherwise they have been soundly disproved by Flat Earthers. The Bedford Level Experiment remains one of the most widely-accepted examples of Flat Earth proof.

Method

At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was understood to follow any hypothetical curvature of the Earth, the observation that the three poles aligned perfectly when observed through a theodolite serves as evidence of a flat Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment

We've come a long way since the mid 1800's. At least some of us have.

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

We've come a long way since the mid 1800's. At least some of us have.

Indeed we have. I personally don't have a 'progressive' mindset – a model or idea's anteriority does not make it essentially less valid than those which came after it.

12 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Indeed we have. I personally don't have a 'progressive' mindset – a model or idea's anteriority does not make it essentially less valid than those which came after it.

Funnily enough, the corrected calculation considerably strengthens the flat Earth stance... 😄

So tell me. In a round earth, a spherical earth, some people will be upside down. Yes?

Why are they always depicted as being right side up?

1 hour ago, Stiddle Mump said:

So tell me. In a round earth, a spherical earth, some people will be upside down. Yes?

Why are they always depicted as being right side up?

It's Science, Stiddle. If we don't understand, it just means we are not smart and/or educated enough.

I must say, Artemis had a golden opportunity in this respect. From their position, they could have shot some awesome footage, especially with the technology that exists nowadays. It would have been very cool to zoom in on planes upside down, etc., perhaps even see the Earth's rotation. Ah, well, too bad, next time hopefully.

4 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

The Bedford Level Experiment

The Bedford Level Experiment was a series of observations carried out along a six-mile length of the Old Bedford River on the Bedford Level, Norfolk, England. The experiment was often performed during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Most results have served to prove Flat Earth Theory, and although a few have claimed otherwise they have been soundly disproved by Flat Earthers. The Bedford Level Experiment remains one of the most widely-accepted examples of Flat Earth proof.

Method

At the point chosen for all the experiments the river was a slow-flowing drainage canal running in uninterrupted straight line for a six-mile stretch to the north-east of the village of Welney. The most famous of the observations, and the one that was taught in schools until photographs of the Earth from space became available, involved a set of three poles fixed at equal height above water level along this length. As the surface of the water was understood to follow any hypothetical curvature of the Earth, the observation that the three poles aligned perfectly when observed through a theodolite serves as evidence of a flat Earth.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Bedford_Level_Experiment

Interesting.

The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic faith hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Interesting.

The Old Bedford Level was the scene of further experiments over the years, until in 1904, photography was used to prove that the earth is flat. Lady Blount, a staunch believer in the zetetic faith hired a photographer, Mr Clifton of Dallmeyer's who arrived at the Bedford Level with the firm's latest Photo-Telescopic camera. The apparatus was set up at one end of the clear six-mile length, while at the other end Lady Blount and some scientific gentlemen hung a large, white calico sheet over the Bedford bridge so that the bottom of it was near the water. Mr Clifton, lying down near Welney bridge with his camera lens two feet above the water level, observed by telescope the hanging of the sheet, and found that he could see the whole of it down to the bottom. This surprised him, for he was an orthodox globularist and round-earth theory said that over a distance of six miles the bottom of the sheet should be more than 20 feet below his line of sight. His photograph showed not only the entire sheet but its reflection in the water below. That was certified in his report to Lady Blount, which concluded: "I should not like to abandon the globular theory off-hand, but, as far as this particular test is concerned, I am prepared to maintain that (unless rays of light will travel in a curved path) these six miles of water present a level surface."

• Original Claim: In 1838, Rowbotham claimed a boat mast/flag remained visible through a telescope over 6 miles, arguing that on a curved Earth, it should have been hidden by a "hump" of water.

• The Fallacy (Refraction): The observers failed to account for atmospheric refraction, where cold water temperatures bend light around the Earth's curvature, creating a superior mirage that makes distant objects visible.

• The Rebuttal (1870): Alfred Russel Wallace, in a, documented experiment corrected this by placing markers at a greater height, showing the center marker appeared higher than the end markers, directly confirming curvature.

• Legacy: Despite scientific debunking, the experiment became a cornerstone of modern flat-earth belief.

• Dispute: The 1870 experiment led to a famous wager, where the losing party (John Hampden) refused to accept the results, launching a campaign of harassment.

  Wikipedia +8

The experiment is now a classic example of confirmation bias, where observers disregard known physical laws (refraction) to fit a preconceived worldview.

YouTube +2

Why does the water from the ocean not run off the edge?

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

• Original Claim: In 1838, Rowbotham claimed a boat mast/flag remained visible through a telescope over 6 miles, arguing that on a curved Earth, it should have been hidden by a "hump" of water.

• The Fallacy (Refraction): The observers failed to account for atmospheric refraction, where cold water temperatures bend light around the Earth's curvature, creating a superior mirage that makes distant objects visible.

• The Rebuttal (1870): Alfred Russel Wallace, in a, documented experiment corrected this by placing markers at a greater height, showing the center marker appeared higher than the end markers, directly confirming curvature.

• Legacy: Despite scientific debunking, the experiment became a cornerstone of modern flat-earth belief.

• Dispute: The 1870 experiment led to a famous wager, where the losing party (John Hampden) refused to accept the results, launching a campaign of harassment.

  Wikipedia +8

The experiment is now a classic example of confirmation bias, where observers disregard known physical laws (refraction) to fit a preconceived worldview.

YouTube +2

Yes, I was aware of the refraction rebuttal, but just as for the Chicago skyline, the problem is that refraction varies greatly according to atmospheric conditions. There are some times of the day and year, and certain temperatures at which it does not occur.

Just as a friendly FYI, all the existing AI engines are programmed to say that the flat Earth model is invalid, so when asking any AI engine about this issue, you are not relying on an objective source.

9 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Why does the water from the ocean not run off the edge?

Thanks to the ice wall. Here is the Gleason's New Standard Map of the World, for an idea of how that looks: