My aunt is a flat-Earther. She is also a 9/11, government-mind-control conspiracy theorist. She also excels at difficult mathematics and is highly educated.
Yeah, it’s contradictory.
I think it’s very appealing to be able to say “Most people think X is true but I’m smarter than that. I know that Y is the real story.” Smart/educated people aren’t immune to that ego boost.
It was only half a dozen satellites, sure, but the beam width of the antennas was about a degree or two, and to cover all the points on land that that satellite could see at the required resolution would require a coupla dozen pages for each bird, and they would be out of date if it was moved in orbit (it didn’t happen often, but it happened), vs. 3 or 4 pages of trig tables and a page (maybe 2) of instructions that you could follow with pencil and paper if you didn’t have a 4 function calculator that never went out of date, but, sure, I guess that would work.
Every summer on my beach vacation I spend a little time trying to detect that ships disappear over the horizon, which many say we can observe for ourselves. I’ve never seen it. Even on beautiful clear days, the horizon is indistinct on the very tiny scale of the vertical spread of a ship way out there where it starts to become hard to see. Ships look smaller and smaller, and I sure can’t tell if it’s because the Earth is blocking my view of their lower portions, or just because they are more distant. I have never yet been able to tell they are disappearing over a curve. They just get smaller and more indistinct, like the horizon does.
I’m sure the earth is round, but I’m also pretty sure this is no way to tell. And I’ve been looking since 1978 when my university astronomy advisor first challenged us to.
Hmm… as has been noted by several people, atmospheric/refractive conditions can be critical here. Did you try it on a clear day using a telescope, watching a ship with a decently tall mast?
But, yeah, if the ships just disappear into the haze, or the refraction is unusual, I agree it is not a reliable method.
Have to remember that the ship thing was noticed back in the day of tall ships with great masts and sails. It may not be as noticeable today with a ship with a flatter profile.
You can see it here well enough, even with a very hazy atmosphere.
I think it would be easier to see the effect from the other way around. Go out on a boat and look back at the shore. About 5 miles out, you can see treetops but you can’t see the beach. If there’s a mountain near the shore, you’ll be able to see it more than 10 miles from shore, after you can’t see the trees at all. You could also try this with a lighthouse. You can see the top long after the bottom is no longer visible.
Charles Johnson, of the (ugly) Flat Earth Research Society claimed that he made observations of boats on the Salton Sea (this was a long time ago, back when there actually were boats on the Salton Sea.) He claimed that there was no “hull down” visual effect.
I’ve done the same thing, the length of San Diego bay, and, yes, there is a very definite “hull down” visual effect, even over a measly four miles of water.
I’m sure Johnson would say I was deceived by “choppy water” that rises up between me and the sailboat, making the hull appear to be below the level of the water.
That’s the big thing to remember with these guys: You Cannot Win. They have an answer for everything, even if it’s complete hogwash.
This is the first of a series; in this one, he uses a cruise ship, zoomed in, to show horizon occlusion, and also addresses the fact that perspective cannot answer why the sun and moon do not get smaller as they rise and set.
The FECTs are pathetic and in need of therapy. I have read and watched too much of this stuff. It is sad that D-K is not painful to these people, because it is hurting my head.
the thing that I haven’t seen a flat earther reply to is:
“why is it dark in Australia when it’s light in Europe”.
I can’t think of a plausible answer either (apart from the obvious one!!!)
This was my go to argument for many years. Then I saw some leading idjit’s cosmos where the Sun is always above the Earth, circling about above the tropics. The apparent position of the Sun, including darkness, is caused by a magical, amazing system of refraction that makes it appear to us mortals that the Sun is rising, setting, etc.
Of course this fantastic cosmology just happens to make the motions of the Sun and so on to appear exactly like the Scientific explanation, down to corrections for elliptical orbits, etc.
But with no Science at all? No explanation for the refraction, the motions, or anything at all. After all, you don’t have to explain what is true. (Aside from “explaining” why obvious debunking arguments are wrong.)
So don’t bother asking why this refraction model keeps both the polar areas similarly cold or anything.
I read or heard some diatribe where the FE invoked Occam’s razor, saying that the flat earth model was simpler and more sensible. One of them was saying that gravity is caused by the Earth’s upward acceleration – because, when he falls, he sees the Earth rising up to meet him, which is a simpler explanation than gravitons swarming up to pull him down.
But the circling sun model makes no sense and is not simpler than celestial mechanics. These people just seem unwilling to hold really big numbers like Gms, Pms, Zms and the like in their heads. Everything is in this little bubble – that is accelerating upward from/to …?
The accommodation block on a modern ship is at least as high as the masts of a tall ship.
The Royal Princess cruise ship gives a draft of 28’ and a height of 217’ (not sure whether “height” mean from keel or from waterline). The mainmast of the USS Constitution (Old Ironsides) is listed as 207’. So, rather similar.
The figure you are looking for is “air draft”. Panamax sized ships (which is a common mid range sized commercial vessel) usually have an air draft of a little less than 200ft but it can be a little over. Tall ships as you say tended to have masts around the same mark.
Thanks. I was thinking more of the boats Napier might have been trying to see go behind the horizon. Maybe he was looking at big ships, he didn’t specify.
I wonder how FEs explain the increase in radar horizon with height?
**What is the point to flat earth? **
It’s flat, it’s got no points.
It does have mountains, some of which are pointy.
I think expecting them to make any coherent arguments about radio wave propagation would be, uh, optimistic.
It’s all points, squished up next to each other.
Well-known examples include Point A and Point B.