Test for Earth curvature:

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I read your response three times to ensure I hadn't missed anything.
Nope, I hadn't.
You failed to answer the question
Well, kinda.
You can't see very far in water because of DENSITY.
Visual aids cannot extend that range because of DENSITY.
Now lift your head out of the water.
Now you can see a long, long ways!
Visual aids allow you to see ...[text shortened]... eriously altered the closer their positions are to the surface of the earth (sun/moon rise/set).

In other words, since we can only see about 60 meters underwater, we should only be able to see about 30 miles above water in the atmosphere, since water is 800 times more dense than air. Funny, I can see further than that from the top of a mountain. Unaided.

With a telescope I can see anything within a few hundred miles if it was above the horizon or more. If Earth was flat you could see RM's from Chicago.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words, since we can only see about 60 meters underwater, we should only be able to see about 30 miles above water in the atmosphere, since water is 800 times more dense than air. Funny, I can see further than that from the top of a mountain. Unaided.

With a telescope I can see anything within a few hundred miles if it was above the horizon or more. If Earth was flat you could see RM's from Chicago.

What you are failing to consider--- as you have continually failed to consider--- is that it is unnecessary to run such a test with a telescope on account that we ALREADY are able to see objects which ought to be below the horizon.
We can see hundreds of miles away at certain elevations, with or without aid... which we shouldn't be able to, were the planet a sphere.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What you are failing to consider--- as you have continually failed to consider--- is that it is unnecessary to run such a test with a telescope on account that we ALREADY are able to see objects which ought to be below the horizon.
We can see hundreds of miles away at certain elevations, with or without aid... which we shouldn't be able to, were the planet a sphere.

Yes, with the key, a planet with a significant atmosphere and temperature differentials making a lens effect. If there was no air on Earth there would be no seeing hundreds of miles away. Period. Just like on the moon, the horizon, whatever altitude you are at, that horizon is IT, not an inch more.

Like I said, if Earth was flat you could see RM from Chicago. Do you know nothing of optical resolution and the eye? Do you not believe the human eye is good for 1 minute or resolution or 60 arc seconds? Do you even know what that means?

Here is a brief discussion of mirages:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/mirages/distance.html

You choose not to believe it but this is the real deal.

And this:

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/bibliog/toc.html#mirages

This, called 'the flat Earth model':

http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~aty/explain/atmos_refr/models/flat.html

Excerpt from that page:

"Flat-Earth sunsets

flat-Earth sunset The exact formula for refraction on a flat Earth allows one to draw the shape of the setting Sun that would be observed in this situation. Here it is, at the right:
The Sun would appear to set on a surface about 1.6° above the astronomical horizon. The drawing shows the Sun's shape at the moment when its lower limb touches this false apparent horizon; the full width of the Sun's disk is shown. Everything between the false horizon and the astronomical horizon would be filled with a gigantic superior mirage of the (flat) Earth's surface.

Qualitatively, this highly flattened sunset image resembles what's seen by an observer inside a duct; see the second image in the simulation showing a wide blank strip. But quantitatively, the negative dip here is an order of magnitude larger than in that case, which is already very unusual. And of course there is no dip at all for the sea horizon in the flat-Earth model, where the sea horizon would coincide with the astronomical horizon.

Although the details of the mirages in this huge blank strip would depend on the density structure of the flat atmosphere, Newton's proof mentioned above guarantees that all sunsets in the flat-Earth model must have exactly this bizarre appearance. In particular, the enormous elevation of the false horizon depends only on the refractive index of air at the observer — a quantity known to many decimal places from laboratory measurements.

The fact that no real sunset on Earth ever has these characteristics can be taken as observational evidence that the Earth is round, not flat."

I am back home, slept at hospital for last three days. Operation over, she is in a lot of pain right now but prognosis is good.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Yes, with the key, a planet with a significant atmosphere and temperature differentials making a lens effect. If there was no air on Earth there would be no seeing hundreds of miles away. Period. Just like on the moon, the horizon, whatever altitude you are at, that horizon is IT, not an inch more.

Like I said, if Earth was flat you could see RM from Ch ...[text shortened]... al for last three days. Operation over, she is in a lot of pain right now but prognosis is good.

I've read Andrew's pages previously, in addition to many, many other scholarly treatments of the topic.
Were you to read it thoroughly, you would understand how such mirages (or refraction phenomena) neither appear as what we've seen in real time, nor can they account for what is seen.
He does a good job describing and explaining the temperature profiles necessary for such images, as well as the impact of distortion thereof.
I am not the one who needs to re-read what supports what I've been contending; you need to consider the conditions he is referencing, the effect realized and then compare the same to what has been demonstrated repeatedly which categorically does not match the scenarios described.

As far as the setting sun goes, there are videos of the sun setting recorded as normal, and then with an infrared filter and then once more with a black-and-white filter.
In the normal view, it appears as though the sun is getting dissected by the horizon, slowly disappearing over the same.
However, once the other filters are applied, it appears as though the sun retains its circular shape and simply becomes smaller as it moves away.

I am very happy to hear of the good word on your wife.
Will continue to keep her in my thoughts and (just go with it, please!) prayers.

Originally posted by finnegan
https://youtu.be/G9Xx9F4JvnQ

I started to watch it but ran out of time.
I'll try again later.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I started to watch it but ran out of time.
I'll try again later.

I am not reaching that youtube. Why is is called youtu.be

Here is a time lapse image of the setting sun: circular all the way down.

YouTube

YouTube

The idea of the flattened setting sun was shown first by Newton hundreds of years ago.

It just proves the horizon is close, a few miles away on a flat plane. If the horizon was hundreds or thousands of miles away the atmosphere would refract it into a sausage shape not a sphere.

Plus, how you explain sun rises and sets at all in a flat Earth? The prevailing dogma of flatassers is the sun rotates around our flat Earth at some few thousands of miles high, not even beginning to try to explain the physics of how that could be happening, just some BS about 'oh, gravity is not what we think' as if that was some kind of explanation.

If the sun was rotating around a flat Earth there never would be sunrises and sunsets as the sun would be visible over the entire flatass plain of Earth.

If it was going around the planet, say illuminating the Earth from underneath we would be back to the sunrise sunset of a sausage shaped sun. There is no way around that. Over a flat plain thousands of miles across the atmospheric distortions would be overwhelming.

You talk about density, if you look through 60 meters of water and that is it, you should only be able to see 800 times that distance through air or about 30 miles. We can see way further than that with naked eye from top of mountains.

So the density concept is not linear at the very least. Density has little to do with ultimate transparency. We can shove light with little loss now through optical fibers thousands of miles and if you bunch them together you can transmit an image that way.

Yet glass, Silicon dioxide (sand) is much more dense than water yet extremely transparent under the right conditions. Sand is what we make optical fibers out of, but some are made of plastic also, still a lot denser than air but extremely transparent.

Your flatassness is built on a house of cards and has already fallen but all you do is construct another one each day.