When you stare at the horizon, you may very well be looking down because as you said, the person’s eye level height above the ground needs to be factored in. However, when observing objects such as ships disappearing over the horizon, as your angle of sight has remained constant, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re watching a disappearing (from view) ship. Your angle of sight is the same for when you see the ship and when you don’t, thus it cancels out of the equation.
It’s tough to leave water “out of it”, because there are relatively few places where you can true “flat” terrain on which to carry out observations like you can with water. The fact of the matter is that if the Earth was truly flat, ships wouldn’t “disappear” after a 10-mile distance. If you go into the discussion with the preconceived notion that an ocean cannot conform to a spherical surface, I believe you’re violating your own desired scientific posture.
Your personal observations at an 11-mile distance prove exactly what? At that distance the curvature is just over 80 feet. If you can still see something, such as a mountain, from an 11-mile distance, I should hope you’re looking at a mountain over 80 feet tall. The infrared video that allegedly sees mountains over 123 miles away I presume is something you posted and not your own. The word “allegedly” was put there for a purpose. Using your own logic, unless you have proof of 123-mile or 275-mile photographs, using irrefutable experiments carried out by you, I’m afraid I’d have to put those into question also.
Stating that things disappear from the bottom up is hardly a condemnation on Earth’s curvature. That’s how it would seem logical for things to disappear into the horizon… from the bottom up. Maybe I misunderstood your claims here.
When I refer to gravity I refer to Newtonian gravity. The type we were all taught in school which, I know, you scoff at as being led around like sheep. Let’s just say it’s the only type of gravity most of us understand. Example of an experiment that proves Newtonian gravity? No… I don’t know of any. Other than the typical experiments showing objects falling in a vacuum, where the mass is not a factor in the acceleration of the fall. Other than that I’m afraid it’s just plain ol’ observation. I’ll just take Newton’s word for it, I guess. I don’t do bending of space and time very well, so that’s another reason to stick to Newton. By the way, things moving in any direction are indicative of a force acting on them. Density is not a force.
The sun and moon is where we totally part ways. You claim “there are many FE models out there that explain how the sun and moon work”, but you don’t go into any of them. You and I both know that claims of a gyrating sun above a flat Earth without any force to keep it on a circular path is automatically “inferior-sounding” to the conventionally accepted concept of a globe orbiting a sun of much greater mass. Add the moon to these FE models, and you’ve got something the Flat Earthers have struggled to explain. You can't just say, "oh... the Earth orbiting the Sun can't be because the Earth isn't round... but a Sun circling overhead with no proven force keeping it on its circular orbit makes much more sense."
Your take on atmospheric pressure is confounding to say the least. First of all, you’ve stated that “space is FAKE”. So what are we talking about here? To begin with, we’re discussing something you’ve already dismissed as fake, so the argument begins with that asterisk. Ignoring that, air pressure is a gradient. We don’t have a pressurized atmosphere and then all of a sudden….. OOPS….. we’re in the vacuum of space….. where’s the vessel wall?? It’s a gradient. As such, you have gradually decreasing air pressure until there’s no pressure at all. What holds the atmosphere to the Earth? Yes….. gravity. Atmosphere contains air…. air molecules create pressure.
What you saw in my last post was an attempt to swerve the conversation from the pointless, endless, destructive tack is was taking. Someone had to stop the proceedings, right?


Thanks:
Likes:
Dislikes: 


Reply With Quote
Bookmarks