Flight times on the flat Earth map

@jess Where did you read that the map makers admit the globe is inaccurate? They admit the flat map projections are.

aliveandkicking should have used a photo like the following to demonstrate that it is not perspective:



If it was perspective the whole ship would be small. What we actually observe is that the hull starts disappearing while you can still clearly see the rest of the ship. Perspective is something else. I don't believe this is evidence for round Earth though. I think it is something related to how light behaves near vast water surfaces. It also depends on the angle of view.

 You will need to draw what you mean.  The camera is 20 m high so an illusion created by perspective cannot come into it unless the waves are higher than 20m

I guess I'm just not seeing this dramatic proof that you are seeing from it.  It doesn't really matter where the picture came from, to me.  I'm held to the assumption that the camera is so high in the sky and the object is so far in distance.  I can't test it for myself.  I have to just look at a picture and join the consensus.  But I won't do that.  I'd have to go there myself, with binoculars and a telescope, and test if for myself.

This effect, to my knowledge, is never observed on land. I personally haven't seen a photo showing it. That, unless you find such evidence, suggests it has nothing to do with the Earth being round but with the water surface itself.

And it looks like LIT just addressed my question about land vs. water.  Thank you, LIT.

Your land argument is problematic because a simple photo is insufficient unless the audience knows the land is flat.   Water finds its own level.  Land does not.

Obscured objects on land are commonplace for the eye, but on water it is more unusual for the eye and grabs our attention.

Therefore  if you think the water has some ability to create this effect unrelated to curvature then we had better talk about something else, like for example the sun being upside down in the southern hemisphere and the huge distance to the sun and the much nearer distance of the moon - something that it is possible for ordinary people to measure themselves

But you need a way of measuring the flatness.   Where on a flat earth water is flat and land is all over the place randonly.

If you have water and a flat earth then objects should not be obscured as they move further away because the water is simply a lower straight line between two higher objects unless you invoke some power of water to create the anomaly

As i said before you could use a dry salt lake.  It would be fairly simple to erect a high flag pole - quite possibly pictures are available already given how simple that would be to do.  The problem though is the distortion created by heat where a salt lake is not going to be dry in the winter.

Apparently you can observe the 'curve of the earth' in the Utah salt flats

historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/the_land/bonnevillesaltflats.html

 "an area so flat that from certain perspectives the curvature of the earth can actually be seen. "

The miniscus is a tiny effect of a few millimeters.

The oceans are contained by land on a curved surface due to gravity.   Water in a swimming pool is also curved on a round world.    It is just easier to measure 50m of apparent height loss across 20m of sea

Perspective cannot obscure a high object on flat land with a low object any more than the height of the low object when the camera is higher than the low object.

It it is apparently true that at the Bonneville flats Utah it is not possible to see the other end of the flats from either end.   

The problem on land is always going to be finding sufficiently 'flat' land where, without confirmation of 'flat' land, then what you observe has no meaning at all.  

If humans were to create a large area of truelly flat land then naturally you are not going to observe the effect of curvature

We say water finds its own level.  What that means is that water 'wants' to spread equally upon the solid surface it is flowing over or 'sitting' on.  So it cannot be high at one end and lower at the other end, other than the impact gravity has on an object in a spherical world where by a small amount the level in a swimming pool 'wants' to be slightly higher in the middle of the pool in a spherical world.

Can we agree the water in a swimming pool is contained on a spherical world?   How about a small lake?  A large lake?   So what objection do you have to any body of water being contained on a spherical world that has gravity??

 If you cannot understand why water lies equally on all parts of  a round world that has gravity it will be beyond my energies to explain it to you. 

Perspective cannot make 100M objects dissapear below the horizon even when the sun is behind them in only 20 miles on a flat earth. 

I just calculated before i posted and was called a liar that after 20nm an object will be 100m under the horizon - if refraction is ignored.

The point is such large objects cannot dissapear beneath the horizon when they are back lit by the sun in such short distances on a flat earth

If the earth was flat a back lit mountain would be visible for thousands of miles

Are you saying here that you do not understand how an object 100m tall can be shown to have dissapeared below the horizon in 22 ordinary miles if refraction is ignored?

This dissapearance cannot be accounted for by perspective or having another object obscuring the view unless huge waves are present.

horizon calculators only use geometry.

As far as i can tell if you look at a distant object the light that points straight at you from the distant object strikes the surface before it reaches you.  This happens because the light has to cut thru the densities of the air where light is bent downwards as it passes into denser air.  You see therefore rays of light that are pointing slightly higher when they leave the object.

Will you allow an example where results are visible on land when nearby water is used as the reference point for what is level?

Otherwise what you are expecting to see is not possible to measure.

If we look at a land picture there is nothing there that indicates anything has sunk lower.

Are you saying the water is creating some kind of force that bends light?  Perhaps you can explain your theory a little so i can be clearer if it is possible to design an experiment that would satisfy your demand

aliveandkicking

Do you have anything to say about the flight distances? In fact, I argued earlier against the validity of that argument. You might not be familiar, but in the FE community there is this idea that the flights in the Southern Pacific are faked somehow. I don't believe there is anything suspicious about the flights though. They even claim they are not shown on radar, because they follow a different route. All this supposedly is done in order to hide that the Earth is flat, because on the flat Earth map, the distance between South America and Australia is huge, so somehow decided that the flights might be fake.