I feel like I’m dominating the thread a bit, but yeah, I know the answers to these questions.
Most FE “models” consider the sun to be a close object, and it is day for the part of the disc closest to the sun, and night elsewhere.
Obviously this leads to plenty of follow up questions, and the follow ups are the point where flerfers will desperately try to change the topic. But, the point is, most do accept that it is day and night simultaneously in different parts of the world IME.
I really don’t know how they rationalize this, given instant phone or email communications.
Mind you, I get the impression that most flat-earthers probably never travel more than a few dozen miles from where they live, so it never arises for them?
Of course you could present them with the mathematical argument that any sufficiently small section of a curved surface appears flat in the limit. But they probably wouldn’t know what you were talking about…
You have this wild misconception that Australia is way around somewhere else. I, as a flat earther, realize that it’s just a few miles away because I can talk and see you on a phone without any appreciable delay. Next you’ll probably start telling me that Hawaii isn’t just a few miles off the coast - I’ve seen the REAL maps. And those satellites and space stations; most just circle around overhead - at least the ones that aren’t projections on the underside of the dome.
/loony FE tinfoil cap off
Exactly. I mean, have you ever seen Australia?
The airlines put you in a tin can and rumble it around for a few hours and then tell you are somewhere a long way off. A conspiracy to extract a lot of fare money, obviously.
No, the flerfers are well-aware that Australia is far away. But once you mention Australia, they’ll try to make fun of you by saying you think that Australians are just clinging to the bottom of the globe walking around upside down. How absurd, right! You globetards just don’t see how foolish you are!
Just don’t ask them to explain how during the December solstice the rim of the flat earth is illuminated by their “local sun” while there’s a big round dark shadow over the North Pole…
Just watch “Plan 9 from Outer Space”. Daylight by the side of the road, nighttime in the spooky cemetery right beside it. Happens all the time.
Them new-fangled ee-lectrical contraptions don’t count as a witness for the Lord. You gotta use your God-given human eyeballs.
I’ve seen a video from a flerfer saying exactly this.
I’ve seen some models where the light of the sun doesn’t come down in cones, but in some sort of squares.
Someone in my old critique group is a flat earther. It is purely religious - she interprets the Bible to say the earth is flat, so it is. She also believes in about every conspiracy out there. Covid being a hoax, anti-Vax, contrails, 9/11 truther, lizard people. It’s not just stupidity - though she is far from smart - it is a lack of logical reasoning ability. It’s not limited to conspiracies - her book was littered with absurdities and plot holes. I suspect most flat earthers who are serious suffer from a similar lack.
Yes, the same in my experience, and it’s sad.
I wouldn’t say it is ability per se, but clearly they’ve come from a background where skepticism and the scientific method were poorly taught; if they have ever attended and listened during such lessons. And a culture that taught them that “smart” means cynicism…it means how much you can read between the lines.
On top of all this, once someone is down the rabbit hole of flat earth, they are very invested. It’s a big part of their identity. So even after they are exposed to rationality, and some of them start to get it, “flat earth” is in a special, cordoned off part of their brain where it cannot be challenged.
Ring laser gyros ain’t cheap.
I saw another filmed demo where someone put up two sheets of plywood with a hole drilled in them some distance apart, then had a confederate with a lantern stand with a lantern at the same height as the holes to prove they all lined up this proving a flat earth. The lantern had to be raised some three feet higher before it was visible through the two holes.
He hemmed and hawed a minute then came up with a load of baloney.
I gotta push back on this one. Pretty much every summer when we spend a week on the Outer Banks, and a bunch of other times, I’ve tried to see this for myself. I haven’t seen it work even one time.
I think things are too hazy, the horizon itself is often too indistinct, there are reflections from layers where temperature changes with altitude, there aren’t enough boats moving in the right places, and a variety of other reasons, some of them hard to detect accurately. Whatever the explanation, I’ve never been able to see this.
I’m not a flat earther. Indeed, I have a degree in physics and astronomy, and have worked at three different observatories. Geometrically, this should work. For all I know, there are many times and places where it works perfectly well. I just think it requires too many atmospheric conditions to cooperate to be a practical proof.
If I took a flat earther to a port for this demonstration, I’d actually expect them to wind up even more convinced.
Already covered. IIRC the best part was before the experiment Jeranism said something like if the Earth were round he’d have to move the lantern up to X feet which was exactly what happened. Jeranism’s immediate reply was, “Interesting.”
Maybe it is haze. Here are some examples:
I agree with Napier. I’ve lived near the coast my whole life. The effect is not at all obvious and is highly dependent on atmospheric conditions.
The distance at which the hull of a ship will appear 1 metre lower in the water (which would not be perceptible at all) is already several kilometres from shore. By the time it gets far enough away for the effect to be noticeable, it is very likely too hazy to make out.
On clear days it is at least as common (at this latitude) for a ship to appear to be floating above the horizon due to some kind of refraction effect as it is for the ship to be partially hidden below the horizon.
The textbooks tend to imply that this is something which will be immediately evident to anyone who stands at the shore looking out to see. It is not.
Well…it has to happen this way if we live on a sphere. You simply must first see the mast (or tall parts) of a ship coming over the horizon assuming no optical tricks by the atmosphere. You’ll see the whole ship if it is in front of the horizon but as soon as it passes the horizon the lower parts of the ship will disappear from view. They have to (barring some kind of refraction).
Ignoring the effect of atmospheric refraction, distance to the true horizon from an observer close to the Earth’s surface is about[2]
where the constant equals k=3.57 km/m½=1.22 mi/ft½. In this equation, Earth’s surface is assumed to be perfectly spherical, with R equal to about 6,371 kilometres (3,959 mi).
Examples
Assuming no atmospheric refraction and a spherical Earth with radius R=6,371 kilometres (3,959 mi):
- For an observer standing on the ground with h = 1.70 metres (5 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 4.7 kilometres (2.9 mi).
- For an observer standing on the ground with h = 2 metres (6 ft 7 in), the horizon is at a distance of 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).
- For an observer standing on a hill or tower 30 metres (98 ft) above sea level, the horizon is at a distance of 19.6 kilometres (12.2 mi). - SOURCE
(NOTE: There are formulas at the link but this message board said I could not embed media…not sure how to fix that.)
I live near Lake Michigan and I have seen this effect many times over the years.
ETA: Also, this is why radar and lookouts on older warships were put way up high on the ship. That allowed them to see a bit further over the horizon than they could from the deck of the ship.
I’ve always enjoy this effect whenever I’m at the shore. Sure, sometimes the weather intrudes but most of the time it’s quite clear, and thrilling. It gives you a very palpable sense of the scale of the Earth’s curvature.
Some places don’t even need ships, when you’re looking across a body of water at tall buildings it can be quite obvious.
I was a math teacher before I retired. Asking kids to calculate “how far away is the horizon” used to involve geometry and thought. Now it’s just googling.
I read the rest of the article in W-a-M’s Jerusalem Post link and it mentioned Jeranism’s experiment towards the end.
When I was on a Panama Canal cruise I saw the effect as we pulled away from various ports. They disappeared as we moved away, bottom first. Not much haze off the coast of Costa Rica.
I live in Melbourne, which is situated on a large bay - about 40-50 miles around. If you go to the opposite side of the bay, and climb a small hill, you can quite clearly see the Melbourne city skyline - complete with many skyscrapers. If you go down to the bayside beaches, you can only see the tops of many of the buildings.
It is quite a clear demonstration of the curvature.
Of course, I know it’s all a trick of perspective, atmospheric refraction etc and all the other excuses that get trotted out 
, but it actually looks quite effective.
There are a couple of other points around the bay where you are only looking over a few miles, and with binoculars, you can see the effect when looking at houses - only the top half is visible.
Yup.
Here is a picture of Chicago taken from the west shore of Michigan (or a boat some distance east of Chicago…not sure):
(At a guess I would say the bottom 25-30 stories are below the horizon. There are a lot more tall buildings there you cannot see.)
