Flat Earth

[suchmoon]

This is not correct.  Please try again.

"The curvature adds an ~8 inch drop per mile" = WRONG

How can you speak up when you don't even know the fucking curvature formula.  All the while spouting off like your know about this shit.  

7.98" per mile squared unless you don't trust Pythagoras either.

Let's say your eyes are at 5 feet and you're standing at the edge of the water. Your horizon is at ~3 miles, so you'll see pretty much the whole boat at that distance.

[1714925954]

1714925954

[joerogers8]

This is not correct.  Please try again.

"The curvature adds an ~8 inch drop per mile" = WRONG

How can you speak up when you don't even know the fucking curvature formula.  All the while spouting off like your know about this shit.  

7.98" per mile squared unless you don't trust Pythagoras either.

Let's say your eyes are at 5 feet and you're standing at the edge of the water. Your horizon is at ~3 miles, so you'll see pretty much the whole boat at that distance.

Right you need to square it.  You left that out last time.  It makes a huge difference.

Do you have any shots of the horizon slanting off from left to right?  If so please share as that would influence a lot of people to come back to sphere earth.  You would actually prove the curvature at that point.  You would change all our direct realities.

For now the things I know for myself are.

Water finds its level
Water needs a container or it will flow
Water will not take the shape of an exterior surface (roundness of the earth)
Vacuums cannot exist next to pressurized systems without equalizing

If I'm to change my view from "we are not on a sphere" I need something that I experience for myself that would prove the spherical nature of the earth.  Else, I am putting what I experience in my own life to the side to believe in what authority and consensus tells me.  

For me the boat disappearing behind the curve just doesn't do it for me as with stronger and stronger viewing devices I can bring the ship back until the atmospheric conditions make that impossible.  Yes I have really done this as when I was first introduced I tried to disprove it as a science project with my son.  Its the same as watching your friend travel away from you a distance.  He will start disappearing form the bottom half as he moves out in the distance.

So the Archimedes (?) boat going behind the curve experiment was the first thing we tested as that was the easiest. 

I have also moved locations (thanks crytpo) where I have almost on unobstructed view.  Its crazy to see airplanes fly seemingly straight up from the horizon (like a rocket) then level off as it gets above you then it appears to sink back down and appear to crash into the horizon once again.  We then started taking one point perspective art classes to learn how our eyes work and realize what we see is not reality as the plane was level the entire time.  

The next thing I looked into was the two sticks in the ground experiment Eratosthenes did.  This however is an issue due to the close sun theory.  When first introduced the close sun seems outrageous however sextants and theodolites show the sun is about 3k miles away.  Not 93 million.  Navigators have been using these tools for 100's of years without issue.  Then upon looking further the entire concept that the sun in 400x larger than the moon and it just so happens its 400x further away just doesn't sit right with me.  That's one hell of a coincidence.  So this one was out (for me).  

The fact moonlight is colder than moon shade is also a cool experiment.  Does not prove shape whatsoever but an interesting experiment to do none the less.  

One time for the record I do not claim any flat earth model as my own.  The reality is I have no idea.  I just know the sphere and level water does not work for me.  The obvious answer (from what we were told in school)  to the curving water is gravity however the Cavendish experiment and lack of being able to demonstrate it after 200 years does not allow me to put my direct reality on hold.  We know how things fall but do not know why they fall.  Tyson De Grasse has even stated this.  Not sure if you buy into him or not.  

The funny thing about all this is my son and I have learned way more "accepted science" in this journey than we would have if we did not discover this debate. 

[BADecker]

On a globe the size of the earth - some 24,000 miles in circumference - the curvature of water that finds its own level is not measurable by any means we have today, except at distances. Why not? Because the measurement would have to be in angstroms, the size of the water molecules themselves. We have no way to reduce heat in water sufficiently, while at the same time keeping the water liquid, to reduce the motion of the molecules so that we can measure the curvature. Study microcalorimetric functions. However. We know that water curves in a container with adhesion and cohesion. So, we know that water can curve, and not find its own level.


If there is no other container, gravity, cohesion or adhesion, or a combination of the three, will contain the water.


Water does indeed take the shape of an exterior surface. Consider how many people have been wiping their dishes dry after washing them, for thousands of years. Also, dunk a basketball or tennis ball or golf ball in water. Even when the ball is only in the water for a few seconds, the water sticks to the surface of the ball when you pull it out of the water. In other words, it is wet. Turning the ball 360 degrees in a 24-hour period doesn't have anything to do with how dry or wet the ball remains; so, "spinning ball effect" doesn't apply one way or the other.


If you take a partial vacuum system, one which has a gas evenly distributed/dispersed throughout the vacuum, and you place a chunk of solid material within the system, there will be more gas that gathers at the surface of the chunk than there is in any other place in the vacuum system. This means that there is NOT a sudden cut-off of gas. What it means is that there is a gradual lessening of gas as you move away from the chunk.

Globe earth is like this. Ignore the effect of the solar winds for a moment. You need oxygen tanks while climbing at the summit of Mount Everest, because the air is so thin up there that there isn't enough to breathe. The higher you go, the less the air. There is not sudden cut-off. But gravity definitely causes a gradual reduction of air until you reach a point that is near a pure vacuum. Note that in near Earth orbit around the sun, there is still at least one proton ion for every cubic centimeter of space. There is no pure vacuum in near Earth orbit.


Regarding ships and horizons, lie down on the ground, with the side of your head on the ground, and look out of your eye that is nearest the ground. Do this on a flat surface like a sidewalk, but best a flat, straight road. Note where the horizon is. Next, lie down on a table, in the exact same place, but 2.5 feet above the road. See that the position of the horizon has changed. Objects on the road drop off the horizon at different points. You don't really need a telescope for this, but use one if you want. Ships at sea and horizon measurement is stupid... doesn't prove anything because of too many variables. Road horizon at a couple of inches off the surface of the road is a good indicator. Experiment this way and that, and you will see that there is definitely horizon with objects below or partially below the road horizon.

[Astargath]

On a globe the size of the earth - some 24,000 miles in circumference - the curvature of water that finds its own level is not measurable by any means we have today, except at distances. Why not? Because the measurement would have to be in angstroms, the size of the water molecules themselves. We have no way to reduce heat in water sufficiently, while at the same time keeping the water liquid, to reduce the motion of the molecules so that we can measure the curvature. Study microcalorimetric functions. However. We know that water curves in a container with adhesion and cohesion. So, we know that water can curve, and not find its own level.


If there is no other container, gravity, cohesion or adhesion, or a combination of the three, will contain the water.


Water does indeed take the shape of an exterior surface. Consider how many people have been wiping their dishes dry after washing them, for thousands of years. Also, dunk a basketball or tennis ball or golf ball in water. Even when the ball is only in the water for a few seconds, the water sticks to the surface of the ball when you pull it out of the water. In other words, it is wet. Turning the ball 360 degrees in a 24-hour period doesn't have anything to do with how dry or wet the ball remains; so, "spinning ball effect" doesn't apply one way or the other.


If you take a partial vacuum system, one which has a gas evenly distributed/dispersed throughout the vacuum, and you place a chunk of solid material within the system, there will be more gas that gathers at the surface of the chunk than there is in any other place in the vacuum system. This means that there is NOT a sudden cut-off of gas. What it means is that there is a gradual lessening of gas as you move away from the chunk.

Globe earth is like this. Ignore the effect of the solar winds for a moment. You need oxygen tanks while climbing at the summit of Mount Everest, because the air is so thin up there that there isn't enough to breathe. The higher you go, the less the air. There is not sudden cut-off. But gravity definitely causes a gradual reduction of air until you reach a point that is near a pure vacuum. Note that in near Earth orbit around the sun, there is still at least one proton ion for every cubic centimeter of space. There is no pure vacuum in near Earth orbit.


Regarding ships and horizons, lie down on the ground, with the side of your head on the ground, and look out of your eye that is nearest the ground. Do this on a flat surface like a sidewalk, but best a flat, straight road. Note where the horizon is. Next, lie down on a table, in the exact same place, but 2.5 feet above the road. See that the position of the horizon has changed. Objects on the road drop off the horizon at different points. You don't really need a telescope for this, but use one if you want. Ships at sea and horizon measurement is stupid... doesn't prove anything because of too many variables. Road horizon at a couple of inches off the surface of the road is a good indicator. Experiment this way and that, and you will see that there is definitely horizon with objects below or partially below the road horizon.

They will come up with some sort of optical illusion to explain that too. Or they will tell you that your eyes are deceiving you and you can't trust your vision.

[BADecker]

On a globe the size of the earth - some 24,000 miles in circumference - the curvature of water that finds its own level is not measurable by any means we have today, except at distances. Why not? Because the measurement would have to be in angstroms, the size of the water molecules themselves. We have no way to reduce heat in water sufficiently, while at the same time keeping the water liquid, to reduce the motion of the molecules so that we can measure the curvature. Study microcalorimetric functions. However. We know that water curves in a container with adhesion and cohesion. So, we know that water can curve, and not find its own level.


If there is no other container, gravity, cohesion or adhesion, or a combination of the three, will contain the water.


Water does indeed take the shape of an exterior surface. Consider how many people have been wiping their dishes dry after washing them, for thousands of years. Also, dunk a basketball or tennis ball or golf ball in water. Even when the ball is only in the water for a few seconds, the water sticks to the surface of the ball when you pull it out of the water. In other words, it is wet. Turning the ball 360 degrees in a 24-hour period doesn't have anything to do with how dry or wet the ball remains; so, "spinning ball effect" doesn't apply one way or the other.


If you take a partial vacuum system, one which has a gas evenly distributed/dispersed throughout the vacuum, and you place a chunk of solid material within the system, there will be more gas that gathers at the surface of the chunk than there is in any other place in the vacuum system. This means that there is NOT a sudden cut-off of gas. What it means is that there is a gradual lessening of gas as you move away from the chunk.

Globe earth is like this. Ignore the effect of the solar winds for a moment. You need oxygen tanks while climbing at the summit of Mount Everest, because the air is so thin up there that there isn't enough to breathe. The higher you go, the less the air. There is not sudden cut-off. But gravity definitely causes a gradual reduction of air until you reach a point that is near a pure vacuum. Note that in near Earth orbit around the sun, there is still at least one proton ion for every cubic centimeter of space. There is no pure vacuum in near Earth orbit.


Regarding ships and horizons, lie down on the ground, with the side of your head on the ground, and look out of your eye that is nearest the ground. Do this on a flat surface like a sidewalk, but best a flat, straight road. Note where the horizon is. Next, lie down on a table, in the exact same place, but 2.5 feet above the road. See that the position of the horizon has changed. Objects on the road drop off the horizon at different points. You don't really need a telescope for this, but use one if you want. Ships at sea and horizon measurement is stupid... doesn't prove anything because of too many variables. Road horizon at a couple of inches off the surface of the road is a good indicator. Experiment this way and that, and you will see that there is definitely horizon with objects below or partially below the road horizon.

They will come up with some sort of optical illusion to explain that too. Or they will tell you that your eyes are deceiving you and you can't trust your vision.

notbatman just ignores anything that he can't think up a clear answer to.

[joerogers8]

On a globe the size of the earth - some 24,000 miles in circumference - the curvature of water that finds its own level is not measurable by any means we have today, except at distances. Why not? Because the measurement would have to be in angstroms, the size of the water molecules themselves. We have no way to reduce heat in water sufficiently, while at the same time keeping the water liquid, to reduce the motion of the molecules so that we can measure the curvature. Study microcalorimetric functions. However. We know that water curves in a container with adhesion and cohesion. So, we know that water can curve, and not find its own level.


If there is no other container, gravity, cohesion or adhesion, or a combination of the three, will contain the water.


Water does indeed take the shape of an exterior surface. Consider how many people have been wiping their dishes dry after washing them, for thousands of years. Also, dunk a basketball or tennis ball or golf ball in water. Even when the ball is only in the water for a few seconds, the water sticks to the surface of the ball when you pull it out of the water. In other words, it is wet. Turning the ball 360 degrees in a 24-hour period doesn't have anything to do with how dry or wet the ball remains; so, "spinning ball effect" doesn't apply one way or the other.


If you take a partial vacuum system, one which has a gas evenly distributed/dispersed throughout the vacuum, and you place a chunk of solid material within the system, there will be more gas that gathers at the surface of the chunk than there is in any other place in the vacuum system. This means that there is NOT a sudden cut-off of gas. What it means is that there is a gradual lessening of gas as you move away from the chunk.

Globe earth is like this. Ignore the effect of the solar winds for a moment. You need oxygen tanks while climbing at the summit of Mount Everest, because the air is so thin up there that there isn't enough to breathe. The higher you go, the less the air. There is not sudden cut-off. But gravity definitely causes a gradual reduction of air until you reach a point that is near a pure vacuum. Note that in near Earth orbit around the sun, there is still at least one proton ion for every cubic centimeter of space. There is no pure vacuum in near Earth orbit.


Regarding ships and horizons, lie down on the ground, with the side of your head on the ground, and look out of your eye that is nearest the ground. Do this on a flat surface like a sidewalk, but best a flat, straight road. Note where the horizon is. Next, lie down on a table, in the exact same place, but 2.5 feet above the road. See that the position of the horizon has changed. Objects on the road drop off the horizon at different points. You don't really need a telescope for this, but use one if you want. Ships at sea and horizon measurement is stupid... doesn't prove anything because of too many variables. Road horizon at a couple of inches off the surface of the road is a good indicator. Experiment this way and that, and you will see that there is definitely horizon with objects below or partially below the road horizon.

I appreciate this response.

I believe we can all "science" and win in the end.  I find this to be a very interesting topic and love doing experiments.  

The Mount Everest example you gave us is very interesting.  I see what your saying about the "cut off".  For me the "relative density" explanation makes more sense than gravity however I cannot answer why there is a gradual lessening of the air.  Why doesn't gravity push the air down equally in the ball earth model?  I will be looking into this and as you have made a good point and now I want to know.  I report back (may take a bit of time) what I find out.  Thanks for giving me something to think about.  

The chunk of metal in the vacuum is also an interesting experiment to try.  Not sure how feasible it would be for me to attempt to create this experiment but I'm going to look into it.  

With the water example on the ball and dishes I don't buy into that as much.  Were talking about a thin film of water which runs off the ball/dish.  To me comparing that to a mass curve in the ocean where the water is conforming to a shape and holding that shape while supporting it's own weight and not flowing is a massively different situation all together.  Not trying to start a fight on this or be disrespectful but I'm not behind this one as much.  If there is another situation you can point me to where there are gallons of water holding the shape and not flowing I would be interested to hear.  

I wasn't sure what your getting at with the laying down on the road.  When you change your perspective the horizon will change for sure I agree with that.  I saw a woman from NASA claim that the earth is round because you can see ships go over the horizon.  As soon as I could pull the ship back using binoculars (at the same position I was using when I saw it sink behind the horizon) I call bullshit.  I'm in agreement with the ship and water being inconclusive.  Both sides, hell every side including the penis shaped earth is going to call BS attempting to prove shape of the earth using the boat disappearing behind the water curve.  

[Astargath]

On a globe the size of the earth - some 24,000 miles in circumference - the curvature of water that finds its own level is not measurable by any means we have today, except at distances. Why not? Because the measurement would have to be in angstroms, the size of the water molecules themselves. We have no way to reduce heat in water sufficiently, while at the same time keeping the water liquid, to reduce the motion of the molecules so that we can measure the curvature. Study microcalorimetric functions. However. We know that water curves in a container with adhesion and cohesion. So, we know that water can curve, and not find its own level.


If there is no other container, gravity, cohesion or adhesion, or a combination of the three, will contain the water.


Water does indeed take the shape of an exterior surface. Consider how many people have been wiping their dishes dry after washing them, for thousands of years. Also, dunk a basketball or tennis ball or golf ball in water. Even when the ball is only in the water for a few seconds, the water sticks to the surface of the ball when you pull it out of the water. In other words, it is wet. Turning the ball 360 degrees in a 24-hour period doesn't have anything to do with how dry or wet the ball remains; so, "spinning ball effect" doesn't apply one way or the other.


If you take a partial vacuum system, one which has a gas evenly distributed/dispersed throughout the vacuum, and you place a chunk of solid material within the system, there will be more gas that gathers at the surface of the chunk than there is in any other place in the vacuum system. This means that there is NOT a sudden cut-off of gas. What it means is that there is a gradual lessening of gas as you move away from the chunk.

Globe earth is like this. Ignore the effect of the solar winds for a moment. You need oxygen tanks while climbing at the summit of Mount Everest, because the air is so thin up there that there isn't enough to breathe. The higher you go, the less the air. There is not sudden cut-off. But gravity definitely causes a gradual reduction of air until you reach a point that is near a pure vacuum. Note that in near Earth orbit around the sun, there is still at least one proton ion for every cubic centimeter of space. There is no pure vacuum in near Earth orbit.


Regarding ships and horizons, lie down on the ground, with the side of your head on the ground, and look out of your eye that is nearest the ground. Do this on a flat surface like a sidewalk, but best a flat, straight road. Note where the horizon is. Next, lie down on a table, in the exact same place, but 2.5 feet above the road. See that the position of the horizon has changed. Objects on the road drop off the horizon at different points. You don't really need a telescope for this, but use one if you want. Ships at sea and horizon measurement is stupid... doesn't prove anything because of too many variables. Road horizon at a couple of inches off the surface of the road is a good indicator. Experiment this way and that, and you will see that there is definitely horizon with objects below or partially below the road horizon.

I appreciate this response.

I believe we can all "science" and win in the end.  I find this to be a very interesting topic and love doing experiments.  

The Mount Everest example you gave us is very interesting.  I see what your saying about the "cut off".  For me the "relative density" explanation makes more sense than gravity however I cannot answer why there is a gradual lessening of the air.  Why doesn't gravity push the air down equally in the ball earth model?  I will be looking into this and as you have made a good point and now I want to know.  I report back (may take a bit of time) what I find out.  Thanks for giving me something to think about.  

The chunk of metal in the vacuum is also an interesting experiment to try.  Not sure how feasible it would be for me to attempt to create this experiment but I'm going to look into it.  

With the water example on the ball and dishes I don't buy into that as much.  Were talking about a thin film of water which runs off the ball/dish.  To me comparing that to a mass curve in the ocean where the water is conforming to a shape and holding that shape while supporting it's own weight and not flowing is a massively different situation all together.  Not trying to start a fight on this or be disrespectful but I'm not behind this one as much.  If there is another situation you can point me to where there are gallons of water holding the shape and not flowing I would be interested to hear.  

I wasn't sure what your getting at with the laying down on the road.  When you change your perspective the horizon will change for sure I agree with that.  I saw a woman from NASA claim that the earth is round because you can see ships go over the horizon.  As soon as I could pull the ship back using binoculars (at the same position I was using when I saw it sink behind the horizon) I call bullshit.  I'm in agreement with the ship and water being inconclusive.  Both sides, hell every side including the penis shaped earth is going to call BS attempting to prove shape of the earth using the boat disappearing behind the water curve.  

Yeah not that literally all sailors in the world knew about this. naaaaaaah

[joerogers8]

On a globe the size of the earth - some 24,000 miles in circumference - the curvature of water that finds its own level is not measurable by any means we have today, except at distances. Why not? Because the measurement would have to be in angstroms, the size of the water molecules themselves. We have no way to reduce heat in water sufficiently, while at the same time keeping the water liquid, to reduce the motion of the molecules so that we can measure the curvature. Study microcalorimetric functions. However. We know that water curves in a container with adhesion and cohesion. So, we know that water can curve, and not find its own level.


If there is no other container, gravity, cohesion or adhesion, or a combination of the three, will contain the water.


Water does indeed take the shape of an exterior surface. Consider how many people have been wiping their dishes dry after washing them, for thousands of years. Also, dunk a basketball or tennis ball or golf ball in water. Even when the ball is only in the water for a few seconds, the water sticks to the surface of the ball when you pull it out of the water. In other words, it is wet. Turning the ball 360 degrees in a 24-hour period doesn't have anything to do with how dry or wet the ball remains; so, "spinning ball effect" doesn't apply one way or the other.


If you take a partial vacuum system, one which has a gas evenly distributed/dispersed throughout the vacuum, and you place a chunk of solid material within the system, there will be more gas that gathers at the surface of the chunk than there is in any other place in the vacuum system. This means that there is NOT a sudden cut-off of gas. What it means is that there is a gradual lessening of gas as you move away from the chunk.

Globe earth is like this. Ignore the effect of the solar winds for a moment. You need oxygen tanks while climbing at the summit of Mount Everest, because the air is so thin up there that there isn't enough to breathe. The higher you go, the less the air. There is not sudden cut-off. But gravity definitely causes a gradual reduction of air until you reach a point that is near a pure vacuum. Note that in near Earth orbit around the sun, there is still at least one proton ion for every cubic centimeter of space. There is no pure vacuum in near Earth orbit.


Regarding ships and horizons, lie down on the ground, with the side of your head on the ground, and look out of your eye that is nearest the ground. Do this on a flat surface like a sidewalk, but best a flat, straight road. Note where the horizon is. Next, lie down on a table, in the exact same place, but 2.5 feet above the road. See that the position of the horizon has changed. Objects on the road drop off the horizon at different points. You don't really need a telescope for this, but use one if you want. Ships at sea and horizon measurement is stupid... doesn't prove anything because of too many variables. Road horizon at a couple of inches off the surface of the road is a good indicator. Experiment this way and that, and you will see that there is definitely horizon with objects below or partially below the road horizon.

I appreciate this response.

I believe we can all "science" and win in the end.  I find this to be a very interesting topic and love doing experiments.  

The Mount Everest example you gave us is very interesting.  I see what your saying about the "cut off".  For me the "relative density" explanation makes more sense than gravity however I cannot answer why there is a gradual lessening of the air.  Why doesn't gravity push the air down equally in the ball earth model?  I will be looking into this and as you have made a good point and now I want to know.  I report back (may take a bit of time) what I find out.  Thanks for giving me something to think about.  

The chunk of metal in the vacuum is also an interesting experiment to try.  Not sure how feasible it would be for me to attempt to create this experiment but I'm going to look into it.  

With the water example on the ball and dishes I don't buy into that as much.  Were talking about a thin film of water which runs off the ball/dish.  To me comparing that to a mass curve in the ocean where the water is conforming to a shape and holding that shape while supporting it's own weight and not flowing is a massively different situation all together.  Not trying to start a fight on this or be disrespectful but I'm not behind this one as much.  If there is another situation you can point me to where there are gallons of water holding the shape and not flowing I would be interested to hear.  

I wasn't sure what your getting at with the laying down on the road.  When you change your perspective the horizon will change for sure I agree with that.  I saw a woman from NASA claim that the earth is round because you can see ships go over the horizon.  As soon as I could pull the ship back using binoculars (at the same position I was using when I saw it sink behind the horizon) I call bullshit.  I'm in agreement with the ship and water being inconclusive.  Both sides, hell every side including the penis shaped earth is going to call BS attempting to prove shape of the earth using the boat disappearing behind the water curve.  

Yeah not that literally all sailors in the world knew about this. naaaaaaah

Brilliant insight.  How many sailors have you spoken to?  How do you know what they thought? 

[notbatman]

Guess what kind of map sailors use?



Hint:

[Dig Bicks]

[TooQik]

....

If I'm to change my view from "we are not on a sphere" I need something that I experience for myself that would prove the spherical nature of the earth.  Else, I am putting what I experience in my own life to the side to believe in what authority and consensus tells me.  

For me the boat disappearing behind the curve just doesn't do it for me as with stronger and stronger viewing devices I can bring the ship back until the atmospheric conditions make that impossible.  Yes I have really done this as when I was first introduced I tried to disprove it as a science project with my son.  Its the same as watching your friend travel away from you a distance.  He will start disappearing form the bottom half as he moves out in the distance.

.....

I think the question you need to ask is why does an object moving further away always disappear from the bottom?

You know from your perspective research that as an object moves away from the viewer it gets smaller and smaller until it reaches an angular size that the naked eye can no longer distinguish from the background. It's at this point that you can use a camera, telescope or binoculars to bring the object back into view if their magnification levels are adequate. At no time does any edge of the object start to vanish before any other edge, this only occurs when another object obscures the original object.

So taking all this into consideration, if an object starts to disappear from the bottom as it moves further away from you, what is obscuring the object?

[harry_crypto]

Even small communities like Flat Earthers need innovative solutions! EVT is perfect for micro-communities like the flat earthers (even if they're a bit ridiculous)

[sirazimuth]

well fuck me silly... I never thought of that.
I think you should take this brilliant finding to the next major world science conference. It should merit a nobel prize...

[notbatman]

....

If I'm to change my view from "we are not on a sphere" I need something that I experience for myself that would prove the spherical nature of the earth.  Else, I am putting what I experience in my own life to the side to believe in what authority and consensus tells me.  

For me the boat disappearing behind the curve just doesn't do it for me as with stronger and stronger viewing devices I can bring the ship back until the atmospheric conditions make that impossible.  Yes I have really done this as when I was first introduced I tried to disprove it as a science project with my son.  Its the same as watching your friend travel away from you a distance.  He will start disappearing form the bottom half as he moves out in the distance.

.....

I think the question you need to ask is why does an object moving further away always disappear from the bottom?

You know from your perspective research that as an object moves away from the viewer it gets smaller and smaller until it reaches an angular size that the naked eye can no longer distinguish from the background. It's at this point that you can use a camera, telescope or binoculars to bring the object back into view if their magnification levels are adequate. At no time does any edge of the object start to vanish before any other edge, this only occurs when another object obscures the original object.

So taking all this into consideration, if an object starts to disappear from the bottom as it moves further away from you, what is obscuring the object?

The bottom part of an object like a boat is obscured by a reflection of the area just above it. As the boat gets farther away it gets smaller and a complex form of superior mirage that's seen in a narrow band along the horizon called a Fata Morgana which remains the same size, covers more and more of it. Eventually the angular size of the boat is so small the entire vessel is engulfed by the mirage and disappears.

edit:
On a smaller scale, say watching an airplane on the runway taking off with the camera an inch off the ground, it's actually the ground rising up to eye level and blocking the view. Perspective in this case is obscuring the bottom.

On a larger scale say fifty miles looking at the CN Tower it's atmospheric magnification or looming that's obscuring the bottom as the image is enlarged.

[TooQik]

....

If I'm to change my view from "we are not on a sphere" I need something that I experience for myself that would prove the spherical nature of the earth.  Else, I am putting what I experience in my own life to the side to believe in what authority and consensus tells me.  

For me the boat disappearing behind the curve just doesn't do it for me as with stronger and stronger viewing devices I can bring the ship back until the atmospheric conditions make that impossible.  Yes I have really done this as when I was first introduced I tried to disprove it as a science project with my son.  Its the same as watching your friend travel away from you a distance.  He will start disappearing form the bottom half as he moves out in the distance.

.....

I think the question you need to ask is why does an object moving further away always disappear from the bottom?

You know from your perspective research that as an object moves away from the viewer it gets smaller and smaller until it reaches an angular size that the naked eye can no longer distinguish from the background. It's at this point that you can use a camera, telescope or binoculars to bring the object back into view if their magnification levels are adequate. At no time does any edge of the object start to vanish before any other edge, this only occurs when another object obscures the original object.

So taking all this into consideration, if an object starts to disappear from the bottom as it moves further away from you, what is obscuring the object?

The bottom part of an object like a boat is obscured by a reflection of the area just above it. As the boat gets farther away it gets smaller and a complex form of superior mirage that's seen in a narrow band along the horizon called a Fata Morgana which remains the same size, covers more and more of it. Eventually the angular size of the boat is so small the entire vessel is engulfed by the mirage and disappears.

And when conditions are such that no mirages are present?

[notbatman]

^^^ see edited reply.

There's always a narrow band mirage at the horizon, its magnitude however is dependent on atmospheric conditions.

[Vod]

As soon as I could pull the ship back using binoculars (at the same position I was using when I saw it sink behind the horizon) I call bullshit.  

But you're lying.  It's the same as you saying you flew home one day by flapping your arms.  You lie and hope one or two gullible people believe you.  

It is impossible for the eyes to see visible light through solid matter.  

Science has proved this in probably a billion different experiments.  

[nutildah]

Guess what kind of map sailors use?
Hint:

That's called an Airmap and it is not used by sailors. Never.

Here is the text under Explanation of Projection, every word bolded here is something you can't believe in because it runs contrary to your theory:

This map is made on the North Polar Azimuthal Equidistant Projection. This means that the world has been projected on a plane tangent to the North Pole, with the parallels of latitude as concentric circles equally spaced from the pole outward. The meridian of longitude are straight lines radiating from the pole. Every post on the map has a trans direction of azimuth, from the pole and also a true distance from the pole.

Since it is impossible to spread the surface of a globe on a flat surface without distortion, all maps are distorted in some respects. In this map the distortion occurs in the east and west distances. This distortion increases gradually from the North Pole to the Equator, and then quite rapidly to the outer limits. The distortion of the Antarctic land areas would be so great that they are not shown.... The length of the meridians is the same as it would be on a globe...

On this projection, the large land masses surrounding the North Pole are reasonably true in shape and relationship. So the map is excellent for studying the possibilities of global war strategy based on trans-Arctic air transport.

The text straight up says the map represents a distorted image of a globe. How are you going to deny this? Ought to be pretty entertaining.

[notbatman]

^^^ My hint was that's it's a Azimuthal Equidistant map.

I know they use this type because during an elementary school class tour of a large ship, I commented on the AE map in a map book on the bridge and was immediately scolded by the Jewish teacher who snapped the book shut and made sure to explain what a stupid comment I made.

The heading "GLOBAL WAR" on a Flat Earth map says it all, think about that in the context of a massive conspiracy. Unless you want to argue war doesn't involve conspiracy?

[nutildah]

^^^ My hint was that's it's a Azimuthal Equidistant map.

I know they use this type because during an elementary school class tour of a large ship, I commented on the AE map in a map book on the bridge and was immediately scolded by the Jewish teacher who snapped the book shut and made sure to explain what a stupid comment I made.

The heading "GLOBAL WAR" on a Flat Earth map says it all, think about that in the context of a massive conspiracy. Unless you want to argue war doesn't involve conspiracy?

Wow dude. You just totally bypassed all the times the description of your Flat Earth Map used the word GLOBE and POLE (and even Azimuth itself refers to an object that is globe shaped) to make a ridiculous, racist point. Your evidence that the map is used by sailors has to do with an anecdote from elementary school?