Beyond Horizons: 443km world record of distant landscape photography
beyondhorizons.eu
beyondhorizons.eu
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/12/a-new...
It gives me even more respect for astronomers and physicists that they are able to account for factors like this when doing their calculations.
You can toggle flat/curved Earth as well as the refraction and even the height of the photographer above the ground level :)
EDIT: Never mind, it's the "Parameters" text. This is cool :)
I think the majority of 9/11 conspiracy theorists do a perfectly good job of discrediting themselves without needing to be associated with even dafter ideas. (Certainly people distracting from legitimate questions about use of intelligence and response times with obviously batshit theories about missiles and demolition charges in WTC7 are doing the government a service, but I don't think they're being paid for it)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/07/28...
When it comes to the vocal conspiracy theorists you see online, I think they really get a kick out of believing that they're just smarter than everyone else. "Everyone else" being the 99% of the population who they label as "sheep" because they agree with science or facts that are "too obvious."
The other spectrum of conspiracy theorists however, may just really want to believe in their fantasy world.
It does not have to be a permament link, but a fun extension to the idea.
And lasers. If I ever figure out how to squeeze lasers into a project, it's a done deal.
I tend to go with Flat Earthers because I find the counter-arguments against their claims rather inadequate, but that could be because I lack the scientific understanding to comprehend them.
Take the recent total eclipse as an example. It was predicted years (centuries) in advance using round earth mathematics. Is there even a single flat earther who was able to predict the eclipse using their model? If there is, I haven't heard.
That is probably the most profound rebuttal to flat-earthers I've heard. Granted, it's a grand extrapolation of "where do you think ships go when they sail over the horizon?", but it's an excellent summary.
The outcome was mostly disappointment for me. They don't have anything like a reflectively consistent worldview. They don't in general have positive statements (other than that the earth is flat). Their beliefs are almost entirely negative, and phrased as arrogant dismissal of mainstream belief and evidence.
I told her once that Alex Jones certainly has enough money to rent a jet to fly into a chemtrail and take some samples or take a ship and go straight and see what happens. But of course there tons of government conspiracies to prevent these things. In the end these people don't really want to know. They just have a deep discomfort with the current state of things.
This is a very succinct description of the mindset of the flat earthers I have talked with.
[1] a long long pendulum with a heavy weight
It is one thing to say that satellites and Foucault's pendulum prove that the earth is round, but if someone makes an argument (as in the linked article) that the visible peak of a mountain should be 900 meters below the horizon, and the round earthers response to that is some poorly exposited fact about refraction, it doesn't help the round Earth case in the eyes of the flat earther who raised that point.
A better response would be to include some references to some facts about atmospheric refraction in addition. Hopefully the flat earther might understand it.
So in effect I am not actually a flat Earther, but round earthers should be able to explain observations which are not consistent with round earth expectations better.
In my experience it doesn't make any difference how many references you include. They either don't read them at all, or they read them but don't address the content. So far I have been unable to get a flat earther to respond to basic information that I provide that contradicts their assertions.