What's the evidence for that? Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson said so is not evidence...
Perhaps you, and other potential commenters, should ask themselves if there's any proof for what you are convinced of (or what others convinced you of when you were younger)... Believing in "Science" is not very scientific. Applying the scientific method is, and basing your conclusions on repeatable empirical observations and repeatable experiments is a better base for knowledge than 'because the books in school said so' or 'because most people believe that' ... evidence based is the path to truth, not 'hearsay' ...
Eyballing it, Marco Polo is actually closer than Nice so it should be close to within your 100 mile claim.
In short, nothing about your video proves the world if flat.
Next, take a close look at your video at 58 seconds, then look at the map of Corsica. Notice the indent on the coast line near Bastia? Then notice, in your video, how there's a gap where you can't see the mountain? Ground doesn't just disappear, however it DOES hide behind the curve of the water because it's a little further away.
Telos, you clearly don't appreciate the curvature formula:
miles squared x 8 inches
So, for example, drop off at 3 miles would be:
3x3x8 = 72 inches
This is not a flat earth made up formula but generally accepted and can be proven using autocad.
Sure, simple curvature formula... Kinda like how in high school you calculate velocity by ignoring friction.
In this case the formula is ignoring elevation. Notice that at around 3 minutes the cameraman is on an mountain? Look at the island then, around 3:15 you can clearly see ground where the gap is I mentioned before. In fact, along the entire island you can see more of the mountain.
Because being above the curve lets you see further along the curve, but OP's original post basically assumes everything is exactly on the surface (e.g. sea level.)
OP made a single, simple, clean, clear argument based on an easily replicable experiment and simple high school trigonometry - and you respond with an a priori dismissal of the whole theory in the form of a link to a "wiki" known to be extremely biased and dismissive of anything that does not regurgitate "conventional wisdom" which does not address OPs argument in any way.
You put no effort into thinking or making a sound counter-argument. That is not how to combat misinformation.
Is there any source they wouldn't find "extremely biased?" No, because that's how crackpots work.
Seriously the only way I could actually disprove this, is to build a spaceship, take him into space and fly him around the entire planet so he can see the shape. Then he'd probably claim I drugged him and used hypnosis to plant the memory in his brain instead or something, and that I'm part of the vast conspiracy.
Meanwhile airlines are throwing away millions of dollars by following curved flight plans on a "flat earth." Because we all know corporations love conspiracies more than money!
And most of all, there is no need to insult anyone as "crackpot". This content is obviously not addressed at you. Your dismissal has been noted, it was loud and clear. Thank you for your opinion.
Nowhere did I suggest such. I said if OP makes a good argument, [s]he is entitled to a good counter-argument, not some wishy-washy wiki [s]he probably already knows in- and outward.
OP made a specific claim of evidence, which can easily be addressed, falsified or verified in experiment. A roundabout dismissal with an argument from incredulity doesn't do it justice, that is all.
I took a different claim of evidence for flat earth and "debunked" it thusly:
I pointed it out because I clearly took issue with your lazyness. OP made a specific claim of evidence. Instead of refuting it directly, you linked to a (biased, uninformed and weak-manning) dismissal of the whole hypothesis which didn't even address this specific claim of evidence even in passing.
That helps no-one.
It did not help the flat-earthers who only will see your comment as a confirmation of their own bias ("those globalists are so brainwashed that they are unable to grasp the simplest concepts of trigonometry"), it does not help a globalist who will not take a second to think about the argument ("flatearth BS lolölol"), and it certainly doesn't help someone who is still on the fence and trying to form an educated opinion ("OP made a good point if true, and if telos' rebuttal is the strongest globalists can come up with, there must be something to flatearthism").
It was all fine until I pointed out how weak and uninformed your argument was - then you lashed out with insults and strawman arguments, further hurting your case. So if your intention was to combat misinformation, you failed miserably; if it wasn't, and if you don't have the time or means to, then it would have been better you had remained silent and you were mistaken for a philosopher than speaking and remove all doubt. Then truly, this content was not addressed at you at all.
That is all I was trying to say. I am a "conspiracy theorist", which means I doubt "conventional wisdom" a priori, but also a "critical thinker" and a "skeptic", which means I don't accept as fact everything I'd like to hear. In short: I take no sides. I want the arguments for either view to be sound and clean so I can, maybe, one day, form an educated opinion on the matter. Teaching others how to lead such discussions is my mission.
I am quite convinced of the rotundity of the earth myself, by extrapolating from the shape of the moon and planets, but as you can see from my blog, I have almost 10 years of 9/11 debate under my belt, and there are patterns of "debunking" that are simply detrimental to the cause of truth-finding, by blatantly proving to be debunker's attempts at convincing themselves of their own superiority, not to shed light onto a problem of science.
Bluntly: facts were presented, nobody cares for your opinion!
I mean, look at it. It's essentially pure math. The rules should be clear. Even if OP were simply "stupid" for claiming 3x3 be 10, you don't call him/her stupid for not being as wise and intelligent as yourself, you say "look, this is how to solve the riddle", for all the world to verify or, if necessary, correct or discuss.
If you can't do that, that's okay. But please, please don't insult independent thinkers with links to rationalwiki or snopes or something like that. There is a huge probability those were the first sites they checked when their world view first went helter-skelter when confronted with a piece of evidence such as this one.
Again: I meant no offense, I only sought to make clear you are hurting your, and by extension, my case and that of all skeptics. And also, I would like to try and do my part to help this network in particular not to imitate the "debate" culture known from the rest of the web.
Let us try to be excellent to each other. That is all.
What's the evidence for that? Just because Neil DeGrasse Tyson said so is not evidence...
Perhaps you, and other potential commenters, should ask themselves if there's any proof for what you are convinced of (or what others convinced you of when you were younger)... Believing in "Science" is not very scientific. Applying the scientific method is, and basing your conclusions on repeatable empirical observations and repeatable experiments is a better base for knowledge than 'because the books in school said so' or 'because most people believe that' ... evidence based is the path to truth, not 'hearsay' ...
Well said
Let's start with your own information. You claim the curve would hide anything 100 miles out, yet the graph you gave us clearly shows the curvature doesn't start to show until 200 miles out. Corsica happens to be 131 miles from Nice (according to Google's driving directions: https://www.google.nl/maps/dir/42.405714,9.1875346/Marco+Polo,+Passeggiata+Cavallotti,+2,+18039+Ventimiglia+IM,+Itali%C3%AB/@43.3413551,7.3012221,334506m/am=t/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m8!4m7!1m0!1m5!1m1!1s0x12cdf27562cfe657:0x6273e1fa4c10f971!2m2!1d7.61155!2d43.7873663)
Eyballing it, Marco Polo is actually closer than Nice so it should be close to within your 100 mile claim.
In short, nothing about your video proves the world if flat.
Next, take a close look at your video at 58 seconds, then look at the map of Corsica. Notice the indent on the coast line near Bastia? Then notice, in your video, how there's a gap where you can't see the mountain? Ground doesn't just disappear, however it DOES hide behind the curve of the water because it's a little further away.
If you want more detail on why the flat earth theory is pure bullshit, then here: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Flatly_wrong
Telos, you clearly don't appreciate the curvature formula:
miles squared x 8 inches
So, for example, drop off at 3 miles would be:
3x3x8 = 72 inches
This is not a flat earth made up formula but generally accepted and can be proven using autocad.
Sure, simple curvature formula... Kinda like how in high school you calculate velocity by ignoring friction.
In this case the formula is ignoring elevation. Notice that at around 3 minutes the cameraman is on an mountain? Look at the island then, around 3:15 you can clearly see ground where the gap is I mentioned before. In fact, along the entire island you can see more of the mountain.
Because being above the curve lets you see further along the curve, but OP's original post basically assumes everything is exactly on the surface (e.g. sea level.)
OP made a single, simple, clean, clear argument based on an easily replicable experiment and simple high school trigonometry - and you respond with an a priori dismissal of the whole theory in the form of a link to a "wiki" known to be extremely biased and dismissive of anything that does not regurgitate "conventional wisdom" which does not address OPs argument in any way.
You put no effort into thinking or making a sound counter-argument. That is not how to combat misinformation.
I am looking forward to your next try :)
Is there any source they wouldn't find "extremely biased?" No, because that's how crackpots work.
Seriously the only way I could actually disprove this, is to build a spaceship, take him into space and fly him around the entire planet so he can see the shape. Then he'd probably claim I drugged him and used hypnosis to plant the memory in his brain instead or something, and that I'm part of the vast conspiracy.
Meanwhile airlines are throwing away millions of dollars by following curved flight plans on a "flat earth." Because we all know corporations love conspiracies more than money!
And most of all, there is no need to insult anyone as "crackpot". This content is obviously not addressed at you. Your dismissal has been noted, it was loud and clear. Thank you for your opinion.
Are you saying we should let misinformation stand because it's "not addressed to" us?
Nowhere did I suggest such. I said if OP makes a good argument, [s]he is entitled to a good counter-argument, not some wishy-washy wiki [s]he probably already knows in- and outward.
OP made a specific claim of evidence, which can easily be addressed, falsified or verified in experiment. A roundabout dismissal with an argument from incredulity doesn't do it justice, that is all.
I took a different claim of evidence for flat earth and "debunked" it thusly:
https://steemit.com/flatearth/@akareyon/how-to-refute-a-claim-of-evidence-for-a-conspiracy-theory-case-study-a-perspective-on-flat-earth
rationalwiki, I beg you, have you even seen their page on 9/11? These people would deny the Illuminati while chewing a golden apple!
Then why point out that it was "not addressed to me" at all?
And sure, you put together a nice post... But I don't have your skills with blender, or even know what it is.
I had tried to simply overlay a line across the horizon to show how it curved, but it was hard to see with the horizon blending into the water...
I pointed it out because I clearly took issue with your lazyness. OP made a specific claim of evidence. Instead of refuting it directly, you linked to a (biased, uninformed and weak-manning) dismissal of the whole hypothesis which didn't even address this specific claim of evidence even in passing.
That helps no-one.
It did not help the flat-earthers who only will see your comment as a confirmation of their own bias ("those globalists are so brainwashed that they are unable to grasp the simplest concepts of trigonometry"), it does not help a globalist who will not take a second to think about the argument ("flatearth BS lolölol"), and it certainly doesn't help someone who is still on the fence and trying to form an educated opinion ("OP made a good point if true, and if telos' rebuttal is the strongest globalists can come up with, there must be something to flatearthism").
It was all fine until I pointed out how weak and uninformed your argument was - then you lashed out with insults and strawman arguments, further hurting your case. So if your intention was to combat misinformation, you failed miserably; if it wasn't, and if you don't have the time or means to, then it would have been better you had remained silent and you were mistaken for a philosopher than speaking and remove all doubt. Then truly, this content was not addressed at you at all.
That is all I was trying to say. I am a "conspiracy theorist", which means I doubt "conventional wisdom" a priori, but also a "critical thinker" and a "skeptic", which means I don't accept as fact everything I'd like to hear. In short: I take no sides. I want the arguments for either view to be sound and clean so I can, maybe, one day, form an educated opinion on the matter. Teaching others how to lead such discussions is my mission.
I am quite convinced of the rotundity of the earth myself, by extrapolating from the shape of the moon and planets, but as you can see from my blog, I have almost 10 years of 9/11 debate under my belt, and there are patterns of "debunking" that are simply detrimental to the cause of truth-finding, by blatantly proving to be debunker's attempts at convincing themselves of their own superiority, not to shed light onto a problem of science.
Bluntly: facts were presented, nobody cares for your opinion!
I mean, look at it. It's essentially pure math. The rules should be clear. Even if OP were simply "stupid" for claiming 3x3 be 10, you don't call him/her stupid for not being as wise and intelligent as yourself, you say "look, this is how to solve the riddle", for all the world to verify or, if necessary, correct or discuss.
If you can't do that, that's okay. But please, please don't insult independent thinkers with links to rationalwiki or snopes or something like that. There is a huge probability those were the first sites they checked when their world view first went helter-skelter when confronted with a piece of evidence such as this one.
Again: I meant no offense, I only sought to make clear you are hurting your, and by extension, my case and that of all skeptics. And also, I would like to try and do my part to help this network in particular not to imitate the "debate" culture known from the rest of the web.
Let us try to be excellent to each other. That is all.