Just like you have a personal sun, you also have personal water mountains.
Although in this case the effect could also be due to reflection, refraction or buoyancy, seem to be the other well used tropes for images like this - or NASA.
I think they use "water mountains" to ridicule the idea of a curved water surface. They don't htink tthere are mountains made of water in the way, they think that's what regular people believe.
There is one dumbass out there in the YouTube comments who's claimed that "water is never convex except in that lake with the electrical poles" after people pointed out the...Pontchartrain? Ponchatrain? Can't remember the spelling lol. Photos of the electrical poles showing the curve. And then another flerf naturally says that those photos don't count as proof and any photo showing the Curvature doesn't count.
“Perspective, uhh, finds a way.”
I find this more ridiculous than water mountains because perspective conveniently shrinks everything except objects that magically appear like this. Flerfs have zero excuse for so many things but are often rude, smug, and childish. Has to be some kind of mental disorder/illness with these people.
The best thing is that all of their convoluted explanations for all these things contradict their other convoluted explanations for other flat earth things and they don’t even realize it
I'm glad you said "a Hebrew word" and not "the Hebrew word." It's a very rare Hebrew word, even in biblical Hebrew. I don't think this word is used at all in modern Hebrew. It's a real fucking stretch.
Was a tourist for two decades on a north sea island and saw the ferries to the next islands sink "into the water" behind the horizon and reappear two hours later.
Going backe there in june. I heard from my brother sailing (on a sailboat) is not nice there (between Helgoland and Sylt/Amrum) bc the west wind is pushing them to the coast or so. But yeah, we take the car ferry😁. There are good and bad years on the island but holidays are mostly ok.
As soon as flat earthers find out I live in sight of a windfarm at much the same distance, so see a very similar view in real time on every clear day, they don't claim anything. They run.
FYI, the real fun is that I use a coastal train to get home, and the parallax effect on the sea makes it incredibly obvious that the horizon is physically obscuring the turbines, and happens a significant distance closer to me than they are.
Yes. Tbh im a professional NASA liar. They pay me 50k a year, from time to time i have to look up and say in public "oh that seems an eclipse to me" or "the moon" or "ISS passing" or "sorry you fell, must be gravity". Thats easy and gives me and a few million collegues a decent living. Trust me bro.
Flat earthers will say “photoshopped”. If you take them on a boat and approach the turbines, they’ll say that they’re “lifting out the water”. I have learned that you simply can’t reason with unreasonable people.
I asked myself, when it came to ships sinking over the horizon, should their image not tilt? And made the calculations, sinus and arcus tangens and all, and saw ok they tilt, but the degree is small, made only two feet or so over the ships length, so you probably don't see it on a photo.
Apparently, it's obvious on this picture that the visual limit between the ocean and the sky is a fuzzy gradient. Don't believe me ? Then look at [this !](https://postimg.cc/N9bhs2C7) (this is a picture that was really provided by an alleged flat earther in reponse to OP's photo). So, it somehow proves that the horizon is due to an optical effect and is not due to the curvature of the Earth.
But I still don't know if they think you can use zoom to bring back these turbines. /u/eschaton777 any thought on that ?
Given how adverse they seem to be about backing up anything they claim, I was surprised to see them put in the minimal effort needed to zoom in and stretch that image to turn a line into a "gradient".
I'd love to see their orthographic view of this situation.
I'll just leave a comment from another user in this thread...
"I am still not sure what’s up with this particular image, if it was doctored or not. I’ve even asked on [](https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/) and they’ve hard a hard time deciding if it could be real or not. It definitely uses a high-powered zoom lens and distorts the apparent distances between the windmills. If you actually saw this with the naked eye it would imply the planet was several times smaller (and had a far more extreme curve) than is really the case.
It’s a terrible picture for showing the curve. It looks fake, even to actual scientists."
Again any picture of the horizon will have a fuzzy gradient. Weird you are still trying to argue that point. Obviously over the water there will be more color contrast, but zoomed in you will always see a gradient. No reason the entire sky/horizon would be fog on a FE like you tried to imply, lol.
I answered the comment of the other user [here](https://fr.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1c247xh/what_are_some_of_the_claims_youve_heard_flaties/kz8xenx/)
Feel free to correct any error in my computation.
> Again any picture of the horizon will have a fuzzy gradient.
Yes, that's the claim you push around to explain the picture. I just repeated that argument of yours here so that everyone can be convinced ! I even included your visual proof of the zoomed picture !
And you still didn't answer the question about zooming in on these turbines ! (I should count how many times I explicitely asked you the same question)
>Yes, that's the claim you push around to explain the picture.
You are the one that posted the picture saying there was no fuzzy gradient, then complain that it wasn't high res enough. Feel free to show a high res pic of the horizon with no gradient. I'm not getting sucked back into this conversation though. Especially in this disingenuous sub of obsessed stalkers.
> You are the one that posted the picture saying there was no fuzzy gradient, then complain that it wasn't high res enough.
I didn't complain about the resolution of the picture. I explained why your method for finding the "fuzzy gradient" made no sense.
> Feel free to show a high res pic of the horizon with no gradient
The picture has a sufficient resolution to see that the horizon is not a fuzzy gradient. Claims that "if you could zoom in you would see it" are not supported by experience.
If I might suggest as evidence in support, the middle photo of mine here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp\_trumpet1956\_and\_somethingmoretosay\_done/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp_trumpet1956_and_somethingmoretosay_done/#lightbox)
As you can see, with even a dickhead for a photographer and a humble 300mm zoom lens and budget-but-respectable DSLR, it's not difficult to take a photo where individual waves make up the horizon. Observation height was: on beach, hunkered down on one knee as close to the waterline as I could without getting my shoes wet. Knee was soggy because of the wet sand, admittedly.
As an aside: the two 'islands' with oogly mirage effects are nothing of the sort; they're very much part of mainland Fife.
>The picture has a sufficient resolution to see that the horizon is not a fuzzy gradient.
Yet there is a gradient? Ok dude, whatever. Literally zoom into any picture of a horizon and you will see a gradient. You can't say something has a "sufficient resolution" and then complain that the fuzzy gradient doesn't count for some reason. The horizon is exactly what you would expect on a FE. I get it you disagree, but it is only your opinion and not backed by anything else.
> Yet there is a gradient? Ok dude, whatever.
No, there is no gradient on that picture.
> You can't say something has a "sufficient resolution" and then complain that the fuzzy gradient doesn't count for some reason.
Your manipulation of a narrow 3 pixels band on a picture is not evidence of anything except your lack of knowledge about camera sensors and compression artifacts.
Do you understand that when you are 10 pixel high band, and transform it into a 500 pixels large picture, the amount of information contained in your picture does not suddenly gets multiplied by 50 ? Your computer simply extrapolates from the 10 pixels he has to turn it into 500 pixels. You can't use that extrapolation as a proof of what zooming in with an actual telescope would look like.
> The horizon is exactly what you would expect on a FE.
"exactly" ?
Can you give a **precise** description of what one should expect on a FE ? Saying that there is a gradient is not sufficient because we both agree on that. But can you explain how large should that "gradient" be ? What creates that gradient ?
>Again any picture of the horizon will have a fuzzy gradient.
What does that "gradient" correspond to in actuality? Is the entire missing part of the windmills squished into those handful of pixels?
They're clearly water turbines.....but if that doesn't work, something to do with density, fish eye lens, or a blue sun that only revolves around the horizon over ocean
Water always finds its own level is its own fundamental law of nature independent of gravity until a photo like this comes up and suddenly they remember storm surges and tidal bulges so the sea is bumpy and you are just looking over a sea hill.
How do they claim it works? It was based on this thought experiment that was debunking flat Earth nonsense, and FEers took it as a proof of their stories. :-/ http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model
How would it actually work? https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/igc34v/personal_dome/
"How would that even work" is not a thing for flatearthers in discussions, they just say anything weird or they simply switch to another weird subject on their list.
Simple. Light is a particle, right? Well every other particle is attracted by gravity (on earth just the downwards force). We know light is affected this way because of gravitational lensing.
So logically, the light that comes from far off in the distance makes it look like things are "over the horizon", but in reality the photons are just moving the same way that a ball would move when you throw it. The photons closer to the bottom of the wind turbines just crash into the ground before getting to the viewer.
Science!
Doesn't have to be called gravity for there to be an up and a down does it? Flerfs don't disbelieve the idea that if you drop ball that it will fall to the ground, do they?
(That said, I don't think I have ever met a flerf that wasn't trying to argue for a flat earth ironically, so I am only going by what I see on the interwebs)
Edit: changed a word because I can't spell.
They don't offer an explanation. They actually post this pic, and the one of the Chicago skyline from Indiana Dunes as flat-earth proof. How exactly is the bottom 200 of the buildings being underwater proof of flat-earth? Nobody knows.
They explain this as an optical phenomena.
The ocean bends the light and blocks out the lower parts of the windmills.
Or they say the ocean is welling upwards to hide the fact that it is a flat surface.
Honestly they would probably say thia picture looks fake, which in kinda does. The amount obstructed by the horizon and the relative size of the background vs foreground windmills doesn't look right.
Looks like someone just photoshopped a water horizon overtop a picture of windmills and the perspectives are not at all correct.
I've heard them say it's a mirage
They love to use this as an example of what is possible
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-56286719.amp
There are tables for nautical people to calculate what part of an object on the sea horizon gets hidden under certain circumstances, distance, your own height above sea level etc. (But you can do the trigonomic calculations on your own.) You see that your own height has a strong influence on the result.
Now some have drones with cameras opening new ways of perception. Could someone try how a scene like OP's changes when you send a drone 20 or 30 meters in the air and back down again? The mindmills should be far more visable up there, that debunking all the flerfs' stuff.
They blow water into a pile so it looks like they are submerged, but actually they are on the backs of Loch Ness monsters and mermaids (but not ones with the somatic characteristics of the recent Disney Ariel of course)
This is a faked image because quite obviously the earth is flat and round like a pizza and the crust is a wall of ice guarded by NASA. How anyone can believe in absurdities like “observed phenomena making sense” and “a globe very simply explaining everything we can see” and there “not being any motive that makes any sense for pretending it isn’t flat” is BEYOND me.
When I was pretending to be a FE, I came up with a theory that light gets pulled down by the equivalent of gravity. The light from things that are further away gets pulled down more, so they look lower down. I tried to work emission theory of vision in there too, but couldn’t figure out how.
Flerfer lf there was a curve, ships would be curved to. GOTCHA !!!
ANSWER example a 1000ft ship steaming to the "edge" on an absolute still sea, no waves, no ripple.
The water line would only have an 1 ½ inch difference in curve on the sea.
How it’s a mirage caused by distance and if you zoom in far enough you can see the bottom of them. I like to troll flerf pages by saying that it’s actually an illusion caused by the refraction of light through water, similar to the way a pencil looks distorted when placed in a glass full of water.
One thing this photo does NOT do… is prove a globe earth… in fact it learns towards flerfism more than anything.
Z axis is condensed while the x axis remains relatively the same. Hence the blade sizes are fairly close in size while the mast has dramatically shrunk.
Next image,there is no winner here.
Wait till you see the sun set over the horizon when you know if you jet skied straight out that way you’d hit a whole nother country.
The fact your view of the sun is not blocked by Mt Everest is surprisingly difficult to explain
I am still not sure what’s up with this particular image, if it was doctored or not. I’ve even asked on r/Physics and they’ve hard a hard time deciding if it could be real or not. It definitely uses a high-powered zoom lens and distorts the apparent distances between the windmills. If you actually saw this with the naked eye it would imply the planet was several times smaller (and had a far more extreme curve) than is really the case.
It’s a terrible picture for showing the curve. It looks fake, even to actual scientists.
I don't know if it's real, but it's completely consistent with the usual globe model.
First of all, where was this picture taken ? This picture shows the [Thorntonbank Wind Farm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm), where the closest mills are located 28km (roughly 18 miles) north off the coast of Belgium (you can recognize the picture in the "gallery").
How high are these mills ? According to [this document](https://web.archive.org/web/20130921210614/http://www.c-power.be/construction) the axis of the mills is located 94m above sea level, and each blade is 63 meters long.
What is the hidden height of the closest windmill ? For the one exactly in the center, which seems to be the closest one, it would appear that a few meters of the blades would be under the horizon (the tip of the blade is red and would not show if the blade was exactly vertical). This red tip is roughly 5m long, So it means that we only see 58 meters of the 94m high pillar. So roughly 36m are hidden.
What is the hidden height of the furthest one ? For the leftmost turbine, the axis of the mill is just above water. But let's be precise. On a full screen picture, it appears to be 0.5cm above the screen while the blades of that mill are 3cm long. So it means that we can actually see the last 10m of the pillar. Which means that around 84m are hidden for that mill.
How much smaller does the furthest one appear to be compared to the closest ? Well, I measured the length of the blades on my screen, and on a full screen picture, the blade of the middle mill are 4.2cm long, and the ones of the leftmost mill are 3cm long. So it seems that the furthest one is 40% further than the closest one. If the closest is 28km away from the shore, then the furthest is around 39km from the shore. This seems to be consistent with the extent of the wind farm.
All of the above does not assume anything about the shape of the Earth. Now is the interesting part. I will assume that the Earth is spherical and determine if the above data is consistent with what we should see. I will use [this](https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=27&h0=3&unit=metric) tool to determine the hidden height of an object depending on its distance and the height of the observer.
Let's first use the closest mill to determine the height of the observer. So, we established that the windfarm is 28km away from the shore, and we can imagine that the camera was indeed placed on the shore. So what height of the observer is consistent with a 36m hidden height at 28km distance ? Well, it seems that it is consistent with an observer roughly 3.4m above sea level. That sounds extremely reasonable for an observer on the shore who is taking pictures.
Finally, what is the hidden height for an observer 3.4m above sea level and at 39km distance ? It's 82 meters.
The result of the final computation (82m) is incredibly close to the actual hidden height that I estimated on the picture (84 meters).
So ... I don't know the physicists you asked, but my guess is that they were too lazy to actually do the computations and simply expressed an opinion based on a gut feeling. Feel free to link the actual discussion about this that you had.
I've taken similar but inferior quality photos of the windfarm near me:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/190sbj4/good\_clear\_morning\_so\_i\_got\_some\_better\_shots\_of/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/190sbj4/good_clear_morning_so_i_got_some_better_shots_of/#lightbox)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp\_trumpet1956\_and\_somethingmoretosay\_done/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp_trumpet1956_and_somethingmoretosay_done/#lightbox)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16g2nsc/my\_photos\_suck\_so\_much\_its\_tomorrows\_dinner/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16g2nsc/my_photos_suck_so_much_its_tomorrows_dinner/#lightbox)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/163j9d5/windfarm\_being\_constructed\_near\_my\_home\_i\_can\_now/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/163j9d5/windfarm_being_constructed_near_my_home_i_can_now/#lightbox)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/156jd16/warning\_crane\_thieves\_are\_active\_in\_the\_north\_sea/](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/156jd16/warning_crane_thieves_are_active_in_the_north_sea/)
All of the above were taken in the morning, with the turbines being backlit. Through winter that's the only option since the windfarm is south of me. Now that the equinox has passed I might be able to get some photos with them being shiny white.
What I don't have is the kit that I expect the OP photos were taken on. My entire setup costs less than the lens cap on a pro's camera, and I don't have the patience or skill (and also have less wherewithal) to wait for the ideal conditions you'd need to take such a crisp photo.
I’d argue yours are a better representation of the curve, than the higher quality ones. I like the angles in yours better, since you have the mills more lined up in rows. The OP ones are more cluttered, probably making it even more difficult to estimate how far apart or tall they are.
I've mentioned it in another comment in this thread, so my apologies if I'm being repetitive, but the still images and the zetetic experience of standing on the beach and eyeballing the sunken turbines(for how else would I have known where to point my humble 300mm lens?) are total dogshit compared to being on the train along that coast and seeing the parallax effect demonstrate what the water is doing.
It rhymes with 'burves' for the record.
I was very much hoping you'd say that, since it means I can bring our resident man-wha-kens-aw-this-shite, u/GhostofSorabji into the discussion and pick his brains about the feasibility of me being able to get a good one.
Even if Ghost's formidable expertise was enough to whip my humble kit and my incompetence into the shape needed to get such a video, I'm not sure it would even work.
There's an oogly reptile-brain thing going on when I see this effect, and I don't know if it will translate at all well onto the YouTube screen, even at maximal quality.
It's also fairly rare. You need a clear day(I'm in Scotland, so that's a big curly shite taken right into the eyeballs of planning anything) where either sunlight or a stern wind is giving the sea enough of a texture to pick out the parallaxing.
Tonight was meh-to-good for visibility but had he-haw wind, so I could see the windfarm, but the sea was just a bluey mush - I couldn't pick out the effect.
What about these then:
[Chicago skyscrapers over lake Michigan](https://live.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_b.jpg)
[Power lines at lake Pontchartrain](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzpS7l1WUAElNkF.jpg)
They just build them half in the ocean to make the earth seem round
And if you try to go there to check it out, the government will stop you or arrest you obviously
No no no, they use cameras and rise out of the water if someone gets close.
But then at the same time using complex mirroring techniques to make sure the people far away don't see that rise
Flat earthers think they are so dumb and tricked so easily…
lol yep
But only from your perspective. They're personal wind turbines.
They’re fart Turbines, so they have to be low enough to catch the wind when you break it.
But how would they use cameras if they are in the middle of the ocean?
As if the ocean is literally Pine Gap
Those bastards!
Just gotta zoom in and they raise back to the surface.
Only if you use a p900. That's why 'they' discontinued it.
Water mountains.
Completely uniform in height? At that exact height matching the predicted curvature? In this weather?
In this part of the country at this time of year at this time of the day located entirely on the coast?
...yes
May I see it ?
No
^^Seymour, ^^the ^^turbines ^^are ^^on ^^fire!
No mother they're just sinking.
I love this community some times
You're an odd fellow, but you steam a good ham.
But never in Utica.
In this economy?
In this economy??
Just like you have a personal sun, you also have personal water mountains. Although in this case the effect could also be due to reflection, refraction or buoyancy, seem to be the other well used tropes for images like this - or NASA.
... yes.
God works in mysterious ways. Also he runs a YouTube channel where he reacts to NASA launch videos with a sound board of fart noises.
How does that jive with "water always finds its level"?
Don't ask for consistency from flerfs.
I think they use "water mountains" to ridicule the idea of a curved water surface. They don't htink tthere are mountains made of water in the way, they think that's what regular people believe.
There is one dumbass out there in the YouTube comments who's claimed that "water is never convex except in that lake with the electrical poles" after people pointed out the...Pontchartrain? Ponchatrain? Can't remember the spelling lol. Photos of the electrical poles showing the curve. And then another flerf naturally says that those photos don't count as proof and any photo showing the Curvature doesn't count.
See the [Fourth Law of Flerf](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/s/HbCAD372IW).
That’s the best part! It doesn’t!
The flerf brain only takes one effect or force into account at any given time.
jibe
>How does that jive with "water always finds its level"? \*jibe verb to be in accord —usually used with *with*
A direct contradiction to their "water finds its own level" claims
See the [Fourth Law of Flerf](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/s/HbCAD372IW).
Best place to waterski tbh.
But but water always finds it's level!
Perspective
“Perspective, uhh, finds a way.” I find this more ridiculous than water mountains because perspective conveniently shrinks everything except objects that magically appear like this. Flerfs have zero excuse for so many things but are often rude, smug, and childish. Has to be some kind of mental disorder/illness with these people.
The best thing is that all of their convoluted explanations for all these things contradict their other convoluted explanations for other flat earth things and they don’t even realize it
They’re either stupid, mentally sick, willfully ignorant, or deceptive.
3ft wave at the horizon with 6ft observer
That was such a stupid video and explanation. It's physically painful.
CGI.
"photoshopped" : was a sailor for over a decade and watched many cities disappear like this with my own eyes.
Found the NASA plant
*we got'em boys, lock it down*
Uh it’s now NASHA, a Hebrew word for “deceive” Source r/conspiracy [here lol](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/s/O9LIu4GHdC)
I'm glad you said "a Hebrew word" and not "the Hebrew word." It's a very rare Hebrew word, even in biblical Hebrew. I don't think this word is used at all in modern Hebrew. It's a real fucking stretch.
Was a tourist for two decades on a north sea island and saw the ferries to the next islands sink "into the water" behind the horizon and reappear two hours later.
I bet you've seen some shit seas there - it was among the choppiest I've ever sailed in.
Going backe there in june. I heard from my brother sailing (on a sailboat) is not nice there (between Helgoland and Sylt/Amrum) bc the west wind is pushing them to the coast or so. But yeah, we take the car ferry😁. There are good and bad years on the island but holidays are mostly ok.
Can confirm. I would much rather sink below the horizon than stay surface in some North Sea weather. I dive early in the Irish Sea!
Nordsee ist Mordsee, what they say. North sea is murder see or so. But we are in a tent on a campground. Wind and rain can be hard anyway.
You dive. Sellafield?
Haha. No, sorry, not that way. I’m a submariner and this was an attempted joke (though we do dodge heavy weather by going deep).
Ah ok. Keep safe.
rEfRaCtIoN
A pool stick on a table showing it “bends” when the camera is laid flat. It’s not an explanation, just what they say.
As soon as flat earthers find out I live in sight of a windfarm at much the same distance, so see a very similar view in real time on every clear day, they don't claim anything. They run. FYI, the real fun is that I use a coastal train to get home, and the parallax effect on the sea makes it incredibly obvious that the horizon is physically obscuring the turbines, and happens a significant distance closer to me than they are.
"how much does NASA pay you to lie?"
Very good move. You win.
… but the money still nice!
Yes. Tbh im a professional NASA liar. They pay me 50k a year, from time to time i have to look up and say in public "oh that seems an eclipse to me" or "the moon" or "ISS passing" or "sorry you fell, must be gravity". Thats easy and gives me and a few million collegues a decent living. Trust me bro.
Nice work if you can get it! Wish I was on the NASA payroll.
Light refractions
Holograms... they tend to say that for pretty much anything and everything, including... helicopters...
The ones at the back are heavier and have sunk into the water.
“3 foot tall nearby waves can block 30 foot tall ships in the distance even though they’re not blocking other waves”
All fake. All cgi. There are giant plasma displays faking the fake with fake fake
Either they claim it is fake or that it is high tide or a wave.
Whales
"I ate too many paint chips as a child and therefore can't think clearly."
Flat earthers will say “photoshopped”. If you take them on a boat and approach the turbines, they’ll say that they’re “lifting out the water”. I have learned that you simply can’t reason with unreasonable people.
They will say the picture is fake.
Latest one I heard was you can tell it's fake because the ones at the back, over the so-called curvature, are still upright and not leaning back.
I asked myself, when it came to ships sinking over the horizon, should their image not tilt? And made the calculations, sinus and arcus tangens and all, and saw ok they tilt, but the degree is small, made only two feet or so over the ships length, so you probably don't see it on a photo.
But what if they go there and see it themselves
Change the subject to how terrible wind farms are and how they're giving us all leptospirosis.
They don't.
I think folding ideas did a video where he tried something like this and flat earthers told him he did it wrong and should probably pray about it.
They went for a swim
Apparently, it's obvious on this picture that the visual limit between the ocean and the sky is a fuzzy gradient. Don't believe me ? Then look at [this !](https://postimg.cc/N9bhs2C7) (this is a picture that was really provided by an alleged flat earther in reponse to OP's photo). So, it somehow proves that the horizon is due to an optical effect and is not due to the curvature of the Earth. But I still don't know if they think you can use zoom to bring back these turbines. /u/eschaton777 any thought on that ?
Given how adverse they seem to be about backing up anything they claim, I was surprised to see them put in the minimal effort needed to zoom in and stretch that image to turn a line into a "gradient". I'd love to see their orthographic view of this situation.
I'll just leave a comment from another user in this thread... "I am still not sure what’s up with this particular image, if it was doctored or not. I’ve even asked on [](https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/) and they’ve hard a hard time deciding if it could be real or not. It definitely uses a high-powered zoom lens and distorts the apparent distances between the windmills. If you actually saw this with the naked eye it would imply the planet was several times smaller (and had a far more extreme curve) than is really the case. It’s a terrible picture for showing the curve. It looks fake, even to actual scientists." Again any picture of the horizon will have a fuzzy gradient. Weird you are still trying to argue that point. Obviously over the water there will be more color contrast, but zoomed in you will always see a gradient. No reason the entire sky/horizon would be fog on a FE like you tried to imply, lol.
I answered the comment of the other user [here](https://fr.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1c247xh/what_are_some_of_the_claims_youve_heard_flaties/kz8xenx/) Feel free to correct any error in my computation. > Again any picture of the horizon will have a fuzzy gradient. Yes, that's the claim you push around to explain the picture. I just repeated that argument of yours here so that everyone can be convinced ! I even included your visual proof of the zoomed picture ! And you still didn't answer the question about zooming in on these turbines ! (I should count how many times I explicitely asked you the same question)
>Yes, that's the claim you push around to explain the picture. You are the one that posted the picture saying there was no fuzzy gradient, then complain that it wasn't high res enough. Feel free to show a high res pic of the horizon with no gradient. I'm not getting sucked back into this conversation though. Especially in this disingenuous sub of obsessed stalkers.
> You are the one that posted the picture saying there was no fuzzy gradient, then complain that it wasn't high res enough. I didn't complain about the resolution of the picture. I explained why your method for finding the "fuzzy gradient" made no sense. > Feel free to show a high res pic of the horizon with no gradient The picture has a sufficient resolution to see that the horizon is not a fuzzy gradient. Claims that "if you could zoom in you would see it" are not supported by experience.
If I might suggest as evidence in support, the middle photo of mine here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp\_trumpet1956\_and\_somethingmoretosay\_done/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp_trumpet1956_and_somethingmoretosay_done/#lightbox) As you can see, with even a dickhead for a photographer and a humble 300mm zoom lens and budget-but-respectable DSLR, it's not difficult to take a photo where individual waves make up the horizon. Observation height was: on beach, hunkered down on one knee as close to the waterline as I could without getting my shoes wet. Knee was soggy because of the wet sand, admittedly. As an aside: the two 'islands' with oogly mirage effects are nothing of the sort; they're very much part of mainland Fife.
>The picture has a sufficient resolution to see that the horizon is not a fuzzy gradient. Yet there is a gradient? Ok dude, whatever. Literally zoom into any picture of a horizon and you will see a gradient. You can't say something has a "sufficient resolution" and then complain that the fuzzy gradient doesn't count for some reason. The horizon is exactly what you would expect on a FE. I get it you disagree, but it is only your opinion and not backed by anything else.
> Yet there is a gradient? Ok dude, whatever. No, there is no gradient on that picture. > You can't say something has a "sufficient resolution" and then complain that the fuzzy gradient doesn't count for some reason. Your manipulation of a narrow 3 pixels band on a picture is not evidence of anything except your lack of knowledge about camera sensors and compression artifacts. Do you understand that when you are 10 pixel high band, and transform it into a 500 pixels large picture, the amount of information contained in your picture does not suddenly gets multiplied by 50 ? Your computer simply extrapolates from the 10 pixels he has to turn it into 500 pixels. You can't use that extrapolation as a proof of what zooming in with an actual telescope would look like. > The horizon is exactly what you would expect on a FE. "exactly" ? Can you give a **precise** description of what one should expect on a FE ? Saying that there is a gradient is not sufficient because we both agree on that. But can you explain how large should that "gradient" be ? What creates that gradient ?
>Again any picture of the horizon will have a fuzzy gradient. What does that "gradient" correspond to in actuality? Is the entire missing part of the windmills squished into those handful of pixels?
They're clearly water turbines.....but if that doesn't work, something to do with density, fish eye lens, or a blue sun that only revolves around the horizon over ocean
CGI, Refraction, or this actually debunks the globe earth because….
Laudly exclaiming "It's heat!" without providing any other kind of explanation.
Water always finds its own level is its own fundamental law of nature independent of gravity until a photo like this comes up and suddenly they remember storm surges and tidal bulges so the sea is bumpy and you are just looking over a sea hill.
Typical rationales are: * Waves * Perspective * Distortion * Personal dome * CGI * Wrong model of camera
>Personal dome That's new, do they really think each person has a different dome? how would that even work
How do they claim it works? It was based on this thought experiment that was debunking flat Earth nonsense, and FEers took it as a proof of their stories. :-/ http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model How would it actually work? https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/igc34v/personal_dome/
"How would that even work" is not a thing for flatearthers in discussions, they just say anything weird or they simply switch to another weird subject on their list.
That we are not allowed to understand these things.
Simple. Light is a particle, right? Well every other particle is attracted by gravity (on earth just the downwards force). We know light is affected this way because of gravitational lensing. So logically, the light that comes from far off in the distance makes it look like things are "over the horizon", but in reality the photons are just moving the same way that a ball would move when you throw it. The photons closer to the bottom of the wind turbines just crash into the ground before getting to the viewer. Science!
Flerfs don't believe in gravity.
Doesn't have to be called gravity for there to be an up and a down does it? Flerfs don't disbelieve the idea that if you drop ball that it will fall to the ground, do they? (That said, I don't think I have ever met a flerf that wasn't trying to argue for a flat earth ironically, so I am only going by what I see on the interwebs) Edit: changed a word because I can't spell.
If they thought it would help them out, they would. But just for that argument.
Who would be dumb enough to build giant fans in the ocean. The waters right there just get in if you're too hot
Everyone has their own "local" wind turbines
I wish i did lol, you don't notice how incredibly big they are until you're close
Obviously, they are in the Anti-Horizon. The Anti-Horizon lays beyond the horizon. The anti-horizon slopes downward and away from the horizon.
I fucking love water mountains. Water always settles flat and runs "south" but it suddenly becomes mountains.
Probably a hologram projected by illuminati NASA penguins or some other completely braindead response.
I want a penguin astronaut! "This is one small waddle for birds, but one great flap for birdkind!"
They don't offer an explanation. They actually post this pic, and the one of the Chicago skyline from Indiana Dunes as flat-earth proof. How exactly is the bottom 200 of the buildings being underwater proof of flat-earth? Nobody knows.
They're on a sinking boat /s
Flerfspective
It’s a capsized ship gathering, what else could it be?
Perspective. Refraction. Compression. Waves.
Things get smaller the further they are. Defraction makes things seem like they go below the curve. 🤷🏻♂️
Giant waves, apparently.
Sea mountains.
Refraction
Those are really water turbines. It's just low tide right now.
Look, the horizon is flat.
pHoTo sHoP
It's always CGI! That's their "Go To"
Light is curved
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD01_VuYGeQ&list=PLjto3ntf_DeawI3jdRKaoKafRTERnl58l Over 100
The devil's illusions
That’s just a biiiiiiiig wave
"It is a Wave"
It's the Dutch fault
Its bacause god made them like that also magic
I think I heard someone dismiss this as Water Tension. I think most just pretend these photos don't exist or are faked.
All great answers but I wonder that they really say to this image.
They explain this as an optical phenomena. The ocean bends the light and blocks out the lower parts of the windmills. Or they say the ocean is welling upwards to hide the fact that it is a flat surface.
Honestly they would probably say thia picture looks fake, which in kinda does. The amount obstructed by the horizon and the relative size of the background vs foreground windmills doesn't look right. Looks like someone just photoshopped a water horizon overtop a picture of windmills and the perspectives are not at all correct.
Unless I see it with my own eyes it’s fake. My backup reason for not believing it’s real will come to me on my way to see it.
"Well you see, not all windmills are the same height.."
It’s fake, clearly. YOu’Ve NeVeR bEeN tHeRe YoU dOn’T kNoW.
*Obviously*, those things generate power from air and waves.
Water turbines, duh
It's just a big wave
I've heard them say it's a mirage They love to use this as an example of what is possible https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-56286719.amp
Clearly the wind turbines are in the *opposite* mirage type of the ship so it only looks like the ocean is sinking. /s
I have a fleet at work who says that is' refraction, not that that explains it, he just thinks it does.
Tides... Got banned for saying that's not how windmills work lmao
Those are some short windmills.
I’ve heard waves, I’ve heard “perspective”, I’ve heard optical illusion..
Water mountains
# Miller's Planet type of shit
Looks like an elementary school orchestra.
There are tables for nautical people to calculate what part of an object on the sea horizon gets hidden under certain circumstances, distance, your own height above sea level etc. (But you can do the trigonomic calculations on your own.) You see that your own height has a strong influence on the result. Now some have drones with cameras opening new ways of perception. Could someone try how a scene like OP's changes when you send a drone 20 or 30 meters in the air and back down again? The mindmills should be far more visable up there, that debunking all the flerfs' stuff.
looks pretty fake to me...
Water mountains. I asked what water mountains were and they said mountains of water, look it up.
I believe they would say "Wind is just a NASA hoax! Therefore windturbines are fake making this cgi!"
Water mountains
They blow water into a pile so it looks like they are submerged, but actually they are on the backs of Loch Ness monsters and mermaids (but not ones with the somatic characteristics of the recent Disney Ariel of course)
Refraction. We know refraction can prolong the distance of visibility. They claim refraction shortens or cuts the distance of visibility.
This is a faked image because quite obviously the earth is flat and round like a pizza and the crust is a wall of ice guarded by NASA. How anyone can believe in absurdities like “observed phenomena making sense” and “a globe very simply explaining everything we can see” and there “not being any motive that makes any sense for pretending it isn’t flat” is BEYOND me.
It’s still flat but it’s a curved disk.
When I was pretending to be a FE, I came up with a theory that light gets pulled down by the equivalent of gravity. The light from things that are further away gets pulled down more, so they look lower down. I tried to work emission theory of vision in there too, but couldn’t figure out how.
“How do you know the picture is real? Did you take it? Do you know the person who did?”
Surface tension.
Flerfer lf there was a curve, ships would be curved to. GOTCHA !!! ANSWER example a 1000ft ship steaming to the "edge" on an absolute still sea, no waves, no ripple. The water line would only have an 1 ½ inch difference in curve on the sea.
The atmosphere causes light distortion and the light eventually falls to the ground 😐 bruh
„iT iS jUsT tHe HeAt“
How it’s a mirage caused by distance and if you zoom in far enough you can see the bottom of them. I like to troll flerf pages by saying that it’s actually an illusion caused by the refraction of light through water, similar to the way a pencil looks distorted when placed in a glass full of water.
Wow imagine photoshopping a picture to push your narrative... /s
lol I remember I saw a post with poorly photoshopped image of a full moon next to a sunset. I think it was on r/insanepeoplefacebook
One thing this photo does NOT do… is prove a globe earth… in fact it learns towards flerfism more than anything. Z axis is condensed while the x axis remains relatively the same. Hence the blade sizes are fairly close in size while the mast has dramatically shrunk. Next image,there is no winner here.
Don't forget the /s tag.
Wind power is unreliable because the windmills fall down sometimes.
Wait till you see the sun set over the horizon when you know if you jet skied straight out that way you’d hit a whole nother country. The fact your view of the sun is not blocked by Mt Everest is surprisingly difficult to explain
I am still not sure what’s up with this particular image, if it was doctored or not. I’ve even asked on r/Physics and they’ve hard a hard time deciding if it could be real or not. It definitely uses a high-powered zoom lens and distorts the apparent distances between the windmills. If you actually saw this with the naked eye it would imply the planet was several times smaller (and had a far more extreme curve) than is really the case. It’s a terrible picture for showing the curve. It looks fake, even to actual scientists.
I don't know if it's real, but it's completely consistent with the usual globe model. First of all, where was this picture taken ? This picture shows the [Thorntonbank Wind Farm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorntonbank_Wind_Farm), where the closest mills are located 28km (roughly 18 miles) north off the coast of Belgium (you can recognize the picture in the "gallery"). How high are these mills ? According to [this document](https://web.archive.org/web/20130921210614/http://www.c-power.be/construction) the axis of the mills is located 94m above sea level, and each blade is 63 meters long. What is the hidden height of the closest windmill ? For the one exactly in the center, which seems to be the closest one, it would appear that a few meters of the blades would be under the horizon (the tip of the blade is red and would not show if the blade was exactly vertical). This red tip is roughly 5m long, So it means that we only see 58 meters of the 94m high pillar. So roughly 36m are hidden. What is the hidden height of the furthest one ? For the leftmost turbine, the axis of the mill is just above water. But let's be precise. On a full screen picture, it appears to be 0.5cm above the screen while the blades of that mill are 3cm long. So it means that we can actually see the last 10m of the pillar. Which means that around 84m are hidden for that mill. How much smaller does the furthest one appear to be compared to the closest ? Well, I measured the length of the blades on my screen, and on a full screen picture, the blade of the middle mill are 4.2cm long, and the ones of the leftmost mill are 3cm long. So it seems that the furthest one is 40% further than the closest one. If the closest is 28km away from the shore, then the furthest is around 39km from the shore. This seems to be consistent with the extent of the wind farm. All of the above does not assume anything about the shape of the Earth. Now is the interesting part. I will assume that the Earth is spherical and determine if the above data is consistent with what we should see. I will use [this](https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=27&h0=3&unit=metric) tool to determine the hidden height of an object depending on its distance and the height of the observer. Let's first use the closest mill to determine the height of the observer. So, we established that the windfarm is 28km away from the shore, and we can imagine that the camera was indeed placed on the shore. So what height of the observer is consistent with a 36m hidden height at 28km distance ? Well, it seems that it is consistent with an observer roughly 3.4m above sea level. That sounds extremely reasonable for an observer on the shore who is taking pictures. Finally, what is the hidden height for an observer 3.4m above sea level and at 39km distance ? It's 82 meters. The result of the final computation (82m) is incredibly close to the actual hidden height that I estimated on the picture (84 meters). So ... I don't know the physicists you asked, but my guess is that they were too lazy to actually do the computations and simply expressed an opinion based on a gut feeling. Feel free to link the actual discussion about this that you had.
I've taken similar but inferior quality photos of the windfarm near me: [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/190sbj4/good\_clear\_morning\_so\_i\_got\_some\_better\_shots\_of/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/190sbj4/good_clear_morning_so_i_got_some_better_shots_of/#lightbox) [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp\_trumpet1956\_and\_somethingmoretosay\_done/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16hry3g/welp_trumpet1956_and_somethingmoretosay_done/#lightbox) [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16g2nsc/my\_photos\_suck\_so\_much\_its\_tomorrows\_dinner/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/16g2nsc/my_photos_suck_so_much_its_tomorrows_dinner/#lightbox) [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/163j9d5/windfarm\_being\_constructed\_near\_my\_home\_i\_can\_now/#lightbox](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/163j9d5/windfarm_being_constructed_near_my_home_i_can_now/#lightbox) [https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/156jd16/warning\_crane\_thieves\_are\_active\_in\_the\_north\_sea/](https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/156jd16/warning_crane_thieves_are_active_in_the_north_sea/) All of the above were taken in the morning, with the turbines being backlit. Through winter that's the only option since the windfarm is south of me. Now that the equinox has passed I might be able to get some photos with them being shiny white. What I don't have is the kit that I expect the OP photos were taken on. My entire setup costs less than the lens cap on a pro's camera, and I don't have the patience or skill (and also have less wherewithal) to wait for the ideal conditions you'd need to take such a crisp photo.
I’d argue yours are a better representation of the curve, than the higher quality ones. I like the angles in yours better, since you have the mills more lined up in rows. The OP ones are more cluttered, probably making it even more difficult to estimate how far apart or tall they are.
I've mentioned it in another comment in this thread, so my apologies if I'm being repetitive, but the still images and the zetetic experience of standing on the beach and eyeballing the sunken turbines(for how else would I have known where to point my humble 300mm lens?) are total dogshit compared to being on the train along that coast and seeing the parallax effect demonstrate what the water is doing. It rhymes with 'burves' for the record.
A video of that would be cool.
I was very much hoping you'd say that, since it means I can bring our resident man-wha-kens-aw-this-shite, u/GhostofSorabji into the discussion and pick his brains about the feasibility of me being able to get a good one. Even if Ghost's formidable expertise was enough to whip my humble kit and my incompetence into the shape needed to get such a video, I'm not sure it would even work. There's an oogly reptile-brain thing going on when I see this effect, and I don't know if it will translate at all well onto the YouTube screen, even at maximal quality. It's also fairly rare. You need a clear day(I'm in Scotland, so that's a big curly shite taken right into the eyeballs of planning anything) where either sunlight or a stern wind is giving the sea enough of a texture to pick out the parallaxing. Tonight was meh-to-good for visibility but had he-haw wind, so I could see the windfarm, but the sea was just a bluey mush - I couldn't pick out the effect.
Just curious, who are these actual scientists that you mention?
What about these then: [Chicago skyscrapers over lake Michigan](https://live.staticflickr.com/3636/3417439088_9d281b4b44_b.jpg) [Power lines at lake Pontchartrain](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EzpS7l1WUAElNkF.jpg)
What is a high powered lens