Assuming that at least some of these assertions are true, why are some objects visble at greater distance than geometry says they should be?
The Port Nicholson Light in New Zealand is 420 feet above sea-level and visible from 35 miles away where it should be 220 feet below the horizon.
The Egerö Light in Norway is 154 feet above high-water and visible from 28 statute miles where it should be 230 feet below the horizon.
The Light at Madras, on the Esplanade, is 132 feet high and visible from 28 miles away, where it should be 250 feet below the line of sight.
The Cordonan Light on the west coast of France is 207 feet high and visible from 31 miles away, where it should be 280 feet below the line of sight.
The light at Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland is 150 feet above sea-level and visible at 35 miles, where it should be 491 feet below the horizon.
The lighthouse steeple of St. Botolph’s Parish Church in Boston is 290 feet tall and visible from over 40 miles away, where it should be hidden a full 800 feet below the horizon!
The Isle of Wight lighthouse in England is 180 feet high and can be seen up to 42 miles away, a distance at which modern astronomers say the light should fall 996 feet below line of sight.
The Cape L’Agulhas lighthouse in South Africa is 33 feet high, 238 feet above sea level, and can be seen for over 50 miles. If the world were a globe, this light would fall 1,400 feet below an observer’s line of sight.
The Statue of Liberty in New York stands 326 feet above sea level and on a clear day can be seen as far as 60 miles away. If the Earth were a globe, that would put Lady Liberty at an impossible 2,074 feet below the horizon.
How are you calculating the “should be X feet below the horizon”?
I ask 'cause I’m familiar with flat-Earthers making similar claims . . . and they’re wrong because (in addition to the above) they’re using the wrong formulas, and often doing the math wrong too.
“I’m a 33 year-old American living in Thailand where I teach Yoga and Wing Chun part-time while exposing the New World Order full-time” yeah Eric you are the guy with the inside info on the world’s largest and longest conspiracy!
At least it’s not Jeranism, if you don’t know who that is make an offering to all of the gods you can find.
Come to think of it, “XX ft below the horizon” makes no sense, since the horizon is not a physical plane. Only an angular measurement (YY degrees below the horizon) makes sense.
Also, whether something is above the horizon depends not just on distance and the height of the target, but also the height of the observer. If were on the top deck of a cruise ship, you can see >10 miles further than if you were swimming in the ocean.
Would someone be able to do the maths to get the correct “below horizon” figure for each of the claims, assuming a 6’ observer? I’m interested to see how much refraction is occurring.
Note also that “200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball” is a free e-book you can download from the front page of that site.
If proof #1 doesn’t convince you (because it seems based on a willful ignorance of basic physics), well, try the other 199…
<ancient evil illuminati / mason voice> Yes my evil brethren now that we have the fools believing the earth is round and not the center of the universe we can finally implement our age long plan of materiality, superficiality, status, selfishness, hedonism and consumerism*! Muhuhahahha!</ancient evil illuminati / mason voice>
Luckily we have part time yoga instructors who see through all this.
*See proof #197 (the best no-railroad- track-perspective proof of all!!!)
scr4 has the right of it, the atmosphere causes light to bend down along the solid/liquid parts of the Earth, and this effect is called refraction. The amount of bending is irregular, as it depends on the density of the air the light is moving through.
The sky-diver is also moving at 1000 mph to the East in addition to his falling speed, from the reference of the surface of the Earth, he falls straight down.
Linus, right?
