Flat Earthers claim objects disappear because of diffraction?

[@patrickdix772]

For people who claim to care about only things they can actually observe, they do tend to ignore some things that are easily observable...

[@exploatores]

like the fact that you can only see the top of a ship mored. from the beach. the higher you go in a beach side building the more of the ship gets visible.

[@Loudspeaker0]

Next, some even "weirder" flat earther will come and say, the ships moving away actually becomes smaller as that is what they observe. How can we ever explain and expect them to accept? 😄

[@odachikun]

They're the people to say "trust your senses" when not being able to see curvature from sea level and chalk that up to the earth being flat. Yet they come up with an absurd explanation as to why things disappear bottom up as they go past the horizon. Trusting your senses would lead you to the conclusion that the earth is obstructing the object.

[@robbarton7972]

Of coarse flerf's just distort the facts to try to support their BS story but all they do is show they are clueless or dishonest conman.

[@MrKillerno1]

observable yes, but ignore-able too, and that is far easier, duh!!! LOL

[@ctsean]

Flerf logic: "The horizon looks flat because the Earth is flat - trust your eyes" also "Boats only appear to go over a horizon but it's an illusion caused by diffraction - don't trust your eyes"

[@jasonmack760]

The hilarious thing is that your eyes are the easiest of your senses to fool and the least trustworthy part of your entire body.

[@ottomais]

kzbin.infoNhWEZCP5pVc?si=qzr4kpGmV02ekJoA

[@Sableagle]

@@jasonmack760 ... unless you're a teenaged boy, in which case they're the second-least trustworthy part.

[@abeartheycallFozzy]

Or a middle aged man. Believe me on that.

[@JakeNgima]

Indeed the earth is flat

[@TexMex421]

A great way to see this effect without waiting for a ship to spend hours departing a port, is to change your height of eye. A beachside building 5-10 stories high is an ideal way to do that. Find a ship that is about 5 miles out, (a ship at anchor is ideal) then observe from the waterline, then 10 stories up and some levels in between. The closer you are to the waterline, the more of the bottom of the ship disappears. And because you can do this quickly and repeatedly, someone can't say it's changing weather or diffraction.

[@glynnetolar4423]

Very good. But this guy couldn't waste 13 minutes and monitixe it, ya know.

[@novuspatriarch]

@@glynnetolar4423 You have a problem with him doing his job? Why are you even here then?

[@glynnetolar4423]

@@novuspatriarch this is a job?

[@novuspatriarch]

@@glynnetolar4423You realize a bunch of youtubers are multimillionaires? A few are billionaires.

[@glynnetolar4423]

@@novuspatriarch Why am I here? For the train wreck, what else? Everyone loves a good train wreck. Well, they make that much money (I question the billionaires) they are getting overpaid for the quality of the product, I suspect.

[@James_Randis_Spirit]

I love how flat earthers think a floating ball in space is craaaaaazy, but a flat disc surrounded by an ice wall, guarded by the evil government and inside a giant upside down salad bowl sounds completely reasonable.

[@Espartanica]

Mad cuz you can't drink the Firmament water

[@elBartoDR]

I've seen FE's claim that planes teleport from 1 side of the flat disc to the other side. So a globe earth is unrealistic, but teleportation .

[@jerenoize]

@@elBartoDR Like Pac Man ?

[@SuperQuincy69]

Yes and what powers the Sun to circle the Earth at 1000mph over the Equator and speeds it up/slows it depending on season? And what powers the moon to the same thing but much slower? I know flerfers struggle with technology so I'll accept answers on a postcard.

[@leonxpc1]

@@elBartoDR do you remember who said it? Im working on a compilation of the dumbest things flerfs have said and I would like that one

[@mikefochtman7164]

Yeah, it's always funny how 'perspective' and 'anugular size' selectively work on the bottom six feet in the vertical direction, but never seems to work on the left six feet, nor the right six feet, nor top. I asked one time if the picture comes out differently if they turn the camera upside down and... well they just couldn't see what I was going for. lol

[@joshuabarron8535]

That would require critical thinking skills, which flat earthers don't have.

[@Isolder74]

They don’t care if what they say makes sense as long as they have something that they can use to cast doubt. It’s just an elaborate version of nuh uh.

[@HalfEye79]

While reading, I had a very similar idea: Tilt your head on the side.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@Isolder74 As-is all FE claptrap. Just a way to reject without having to use any logic to justify it.

[@lshtar777]

WHAT's REALLY funny? Is that neither side can see the real ruse. Except for those at the top that know, you all fail to see, the deception and the misdirection. THIS ARGUMENT has been created to RUN COVER FOR... NASA. As long as these idiots never resolve this debate, and they won't... NASA continues to do business as usual. HAHAHAHHAHAHA It's FUNNYYYYYYY !!!

[@BeauSeverson]

The only good thing about flerfs is that we get great educational videos like this on how science actually works and how physics constantly proves them wrong. I've learned more from anti-flerf videos than I did most of my high-school career. I feel as though a flat earther who actually came at these types of videos in an effort to actually educate themselves would quickly find they aren't a flerf. They, however, don't want to learn. That isn't their goal or how they earn their living.

[@stretch3281]

Well said 👍

[@dancinswords]

Exactly. They provide an excuse to think more deeply about things we take for granted. In the same vein, I've learned much more about paleontology, evolution, etc. thanks to creationists

[@jamescollins8397]

The great thing about many globie channels is that are able to educate / give answers to questions that anyone can understand..... I've met many FE curious people online that have admitted that FE only seemed at all possible because they didn't understand some things that many of us take for granted. Having experts in a wide variety of fields making content is I think, one of the major reasons why interest in FE is falling away. Edit for some awful grammar.

[@Dr-Curious]

FE isn't about truth or shapes. It's about people who want reality to change and so turn them into important, clever people without them having to actually be able to perform. So, they will reject anything without requiring evidence, as honest people would.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@jamescollins8397 "because they didn't understand some things" Right. The fully "paid up" FE will make an effort NOT to learn and understand, as you can see when you talk to them. They just continue to recite the claims, regardless of what you say.

[@rchaffer]

7:36 Someone having to explain "things going over a hill become invisible because the hill is in the way" truly makes me worry for our species.

[@TexMex421]

I am fascinated by the people who think your vision only works to a certain distance. As if your eyes are more like headlights than sensors.

[@jagheterbanan]

The movie Idiocracy is becoming a documentary I’m afraid.

[@CerealExperimentsMizuki]

​@@jagheterbananloved that movie but it's definitely a world in which "dystopia" is an understatement.

[@goffe2282]

We proved that the earth was a sphere thousands of years before we could fly.... and now when it's so easy to see with the naked eye we still have disbelievers.

[@jasonbonnier2597]

It's not easy to see with the naked eye, thats the problem. You need 60k ft + of elevation to see a slight curve

[@5peciesunkn0wn]

​@@jasonbonnier2597a huge number of ancient cultures were naval powers in some manner. It's easy to see the curve and realize the planet must be round when you see literally hundreds of ships vanish and emerge over the horizon every day.

[@fiat2496]

We also "proved" that the v@x was safe and effective and then everyone got myocarditis

[@compmanio36]

@@jasonbonnier2597 You don't need to see the literal curve, it's quite easy to infer it from the motion and observation of objects travelling over it. The way the Sun works. Night and day cycles. All of these things don't work as observed unless you have a spherical Earth that rotates.

[@jasonbonnier2597]

@@compmanio36 are you under the impression that i believe the earth is flat 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@JustAMessenger-o7g]

It is so easy. When something starts going past the horizon, the bottom will start to disappear. No issues. No matter how much FErs zoom in on the object to “bring it back”, the missing part is still missing. They always ignore that and never explain it. 😂

[@hesido]

I've seen one claim they would have been able to zoom back the half-sunken part of a ship if they had p900, talking about an already 50x zoomed image.

[@Isolder74]

Well they are also willfully lying. They only ‘bring back’ objects that haven’t yet crossed the horizon. You’ll notice they never actually film it disappearing while zoomed in on it.

[@dogwalker666]

​@@Isolder74yeah the usually start with a wide angle zoom to perform the parlour trick.

[@JustAMessenger-o7g]

@@hesido Lol. I would love to see that. 😂

[@Isolder74]

@@dogwalker666 I find it funny that they seem to think that the P-900 is the first camera to ever be fitted with a telephoto or zoom lens. Is it that the camera is ‘fancy’ yet still built for amateurs?

[@tapeloop9398]

Honestly, it's embarrassing that seemingly functional adults need to have this explained to them.

[@mjjoe76]

Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.

[@lordofducks3430]

“Functional”

[@ErcoleDistefano_1]

Key word "seemingly"

[@zeogold]

I wouldn't call Nathan Thompson, Eric Dubay, Daniel Pratt, C.C, and Anthony Riley functional adults.

[@musthaf9]

That’s fine actually, not everyone is adept at everything, it’s ok to not know. What’s embarrassing is for them to wrongfully but confidently deny it

[@tripolarmdisorder7696]

Easiest way to disprove the "just zoom in and you'll bring it back." Set up your Nikon P1000 at the sunset. Use proper filters so as to not damage your eyes or the optics. Wait until it sets and ZOOM DAFUQ IN ON IT AS FAST AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN!! It doesnt work... Oh well, Dah Earf must not be flat after all.

[@jeffbeck8993]

Can't zoom in on something that ain't there, anymore. Also does wonders for their half-baked explanation that the sun rotates in a circular pattern around the flat earth disc, but inside the firmament dome thing. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad, and desperate.

[@fiat2496]

Doesnt explain why you can bring a ship back when you zoom in. Never go full globetard

[@Bob1014ify]

8:42, the sailboat's bottom is still obscured. It did not zoom back in.

[@FrostyShadowYT]

I really wanna see a flat earther try to explain double sunsets that you can experience in Dubai. After the sun goes below the horizon, you can take an elevator to the top of Burj Khalifa and you'll be able to see sun partially appear back above the horizon.

[@jamesj.mccombie5031]

We need to flag this comment up for the big flat earth fighting channels to pick up on to put to the zealots. It's an excellent challenge to put to them.

[@ABaumstumpf]

You can also do the opposite when driving down a mountain during sunrise. We had it that for about 10 minutes driving towards the sea the sun was just right in the middle of the horizon.

[@cearnicus]

They already have enough trouble explaining single sunsets, and you're asking about _double_ ones? I'm afraid that's expecting a little too much of them.

[@whereswa11y]

True story. Mitchell from Australia showed a double sunset in one of his derp laden video. He just whistled past it.

[@murph8411]

They make up new phrases or uses for words. Angle of attack, angle of sight, angle of anything I can invent.

[@robsquared2]

I love how simple and straightforward these are. It's like explaining to a 5 year old, which to be fair, is what you need to do with flerfs.

[@ChrisHinton1967]

Honestly, I think his dog is now smarter than most flerfs...

[@RayleighCriterion]

Except Dave missed the most important part of Angular Resolution, so we will have to dumb this down to the intelligence level of globers.

[@robsquared2]

@@RayleighCriterion looks like the angular size of your brain is 0 regardless of distance.

[@RayleighCriterion]

@@robsquared2 Zero video loser says what?

[@willer3399]

@@robsquared2💯🔥

[@comet.x]

even in the age of sail we had this figured out! that's why the crows nest was always so high

[@DD-qq8sn]

If only Noah had a Nikon P900, he wouldn't have needed to send out a dove and a raven to look for land, he could have just zoomed in and seen for himself. 😂

[@CosminDon]

I’m still amazed in 2024 we still have to explain to people the world is not flat!

[@thedubwhisperer2157]

I blame the interweb...

[@EZHostglo]

@@CosminDon you are not explaining it, you are simply stating it.

[@TheNoodlyAppendage]

The refractive index is different for different frequencies of light. So if diffraction was the culprit then the image of the ship would show chromatic aberrations.

[@muskyoxes]

We're below kindergarten at this point, having to spell out that an object that takes _half_ _the_ _field_ _of_ _the_ _camera_ is not too small to see

[@LennyTheGhoul]

My dad is a flat earther, and trying to explain this concept to him a few months ago nearly gave me an aneurysm.

[@normancross77]

Your Dad is correct & Dave's video proves it...he is literally showing you videos of a flat level horizon with boats far beyond the horizon lol.

[@LennyTheGhoul]

@@normancross77 Seek professional help with whatever it is you are trying to cope with.

[@normancross77]

​@@LennyTheGhoulyou should not insult your dad like that...

[@philbreadcrumbs8179]

@@normancross77 Dave's video DISPROVES it. Those two words mean different things. You think it actually proves it? How? How does it prove it?

[@anonymoususer4108]

​@@philbreadcrumbs8179 No matter how clear a proof seems to us, there will always be some kind of flaw. Flat earthers will seek out those flaws even if these flaws don't make any sense to us. In this case the flaw is that dave used flat examples. There is no point in convincing these flat earthers as they will always point out these kinds of flaws. Just accept they exist, as attempting to convince them will only make you lose faith in humanity.

[@timhallas4275]

My favorite debunking of this flat earth argument is the helicopter lifting off from a beach 6 miles away, going from invisible to visible simply by going up about 40 feet.

[@toastthehostwiththemosttoa9922]

Yup, that's an old one too.

[@timhallas4275]

@@toastthehostwiththemosttoa9922 It was brilliant.

[@Pierrericheart]

oh sure, no lies there, we all have seen that in real life. Can you say Gullible?

[@maxfan1591]

8:39 Regarding the silly argument of zooming in on a ship to bring it back into view, I'd love to hear flerfs explain why you can't bring the sun or moon back after sunset or moonset, no matter how much you zoom in.

[@DK70707]

EXACTLY!! A luminescent object bright enough to light half the world, on a flat earth should be visible all the time

[@drosophilamelanogaster4262]

I’ve asked that several times. Crickets.

[@milosh226]

I also love how in that example where they zoom in, you cant even see the ship hull lol. Even when the ship takes up almost the entire screen, yet they claim that zooming in brings them back into view from beyond the horizon.

[@Espartanica]

@@drosophilamelanogaster4262 "Angular Resolution"

[@Tsudico]

@@Espartanica Please, define "angular resolution" for me.

[@Beacon80]

It's always funny when they try to claim the Rayleigh Criterion. Like, the bottom of the boat is too far away for me to see, but the masts, which are much thinner _and_ slightly farther away, are somehow still visible.

[@isaacbruner65]

Also we somehow can't see a huge ship 3 miles away due to "perspective" but we can see a smaller plane 6 miles away in the sky.

[@Beacon80]

@@isaacbruner65For that matter, if we're on the plane, we can see all of the ship (at least, that's above water) despite it being much farther away.

[@Dr-Curious]

Try a mountain. Where the hidden base is 90% larger than the little cone you can see, and the front edge is a km closer. That normally shuts them up.

[@Jimschrbr]

It's always funny when a Flerf "discovers" something that they think "proves" their flat earth only to find out that they completely misunderstood the science behind it! 😱 Rock on Dave! I feel like I get a little bit smarter every time I watch one of your videos!

[@skarmex3439]

"Why do bullets fly when fired? They fly because a giant magnet is pulling on the bullet, but it only works after it's fired and then gunpowder is there for misdirection because the government is lying" This was a meme comment a friend of mine put on a flat earth video on Facebook, he woke up the next day to hundreds of notifications of people explaining the concept to others... they will literally believe anything...

[@lshtar777]

WHAT else is always funny is... That neither side can see the real ruse. Except for those at the top that know, you all fail to see, the deception and the misdirection. THIS ARGUMENT has been created to RUN COVER FOR... NASA. As long as these idiots never resolve this debate, and they won't... NASA continues to do business as usual.

[@liftingtheveil8361]

This is not science, the horizon is just your visual limit.

[@liftingtheveil8361]

@@Scribe_plays Could you say that again with your point so that I may respond? Visual limit of acuity is not a curve.

[@sneakyfox4651]

If I were the Nikon CEO, I'd publish a statement saying that the Earth is a sphere and that abusing Nikon's P900 and P1000 cameras to claim otherwise is to be considered fraudulent.

[@TheSidMachinery]

The editing at around 4:30 is top notch! Including an actual video of a camera filming pixels on a screen is such a nice touch and very well crafted into the video :) Love it

[@Nick-tm2sw]

That was the most interesting part to the video. He explained the ideas very well in the video but it obvious for people with a bit of scientific knowledge. I was more interested in how he included a video of the pixels like that in the same video. Granted, I know nothing about video editing so it might be easier than I think.

[@TheSidMachinery]

@@Nick-tm2sw I would assume this is how he did it: Make a recording of yourself talking. Load the video in your editing software and add a purple rectangle. Then record the screen/a portion of the screen with a good camera. Load that into your software aswell and use a zoom effect to see the individual pixels. Based on what screen you have and how good your camera is, you could try this yourself by going as close to your monitor as you can with your cam, take a picture, then zoom in on that picture. My crappy smartphone isnt good enough for that, but my DSLR with macro lense is.

[@marksd5650]

I remember driving west toward Devil’s Tower, which is 870’ above the ground. We were keen to climb it (and did in 1974), and the tower must have begun to appear on the horizon about six hours before we finally arrived. I’ve never been so frustrated. It grew in size from the summit down.

[@JustWasted3HoursHere]

Why would our visual limit increase with altitude? Raising your altitude would put you FARTHER away from the object. It's not the altitude but rather your angle. I find it hilarious when flat Earthers try to show something like this using a table and then they move the camera BELOW the line of the table top to "prove" that objects would dip below.

[@ronen44444447]

This is so incredibly sad that this needs to be explained. Not understanding this is equivalent to having no grasp on reality.

[@pistipisti9122]

😂

[@Requiem4aDr3Am]

Always get a kick out of this argument from flerfs. Flerfs: We see too far. Also Flerfs: We can't see far. Years ago dazzathecameraman did a great observation with a cruise ship from 12 ft above the water and then moved half a mile further away but went up to 200 ft. He tried zooming in from 12 ft and wasn't able to bring any of the cruise ship back from over the horizon and yet when he moved further away but went up higher he could see the entire ship with the naked eye.

[@sphaera2520]

This is why it’s always important to note the position of a distant objects top. We can calculate the angular size of an object of known size and distance. When we apply that to the photo, where the object’s top and bottom should be are clearly defined. This gets even more obvious if you have foreground objects all lined up at the same height. But what we see is that the entire angular size of the object has shifted down into the horizon. The bottom didn’t just disappear, the whole damn angular diameter of the thing dropped from where it should be.

[@thudthud5423]

Also, from Flat Earthers: 1. "The horizon looks flat, therefore it is flat. Trust your eyes." 2. "Ships [and the Sun] disappear over the horizon due to perspective. Don't trust your eyes."

[@BenJZehner]

@@thudthud5423 My favorite one was the FE that was using a pyrometer to measure the temp of the Sun. Saying that it's not hot enough and everyone should do there own research. One minute later, he said he didn't know how a pyrometer works and asked his views to look it up for him. lmao

[@gregsteele806]

My favorite example is the stratospheric free fall that Red Bull sponsored a few years ago. From that altitude you can clearly see from horizon to horizon in all directions. When you point this out to flat earthers all they can go on about is Fish Eye Lenses!! They completely ignore the fact that the type of lens is irrelevant. It's what you can't see in the picture that matters. The ground below Felix is entirely that. Ground. Not a single ocean. Not a whole continent in sight. There's literally nothing but the ground below him and the black around it. Everything else is hidden beyond the horizon, but their poor minds can't handle it. They fail to understand that, from a human perspective, the earth is HUGE. Even the height he jumped from is barely off the surface of the earth, relative to the earth's size.

[@martinconnelly1473]

@@BenJZehnerHe should have used a hot wire pyrometer. Heat the wire up until it matches the colour of the object you want to know the temperature of and then you know they are both the same temperature. At this point you tell the flerf to touch the wire to see if it is hot 😜

[@ronmani9476]

you have made a great tutorial for explaining vision/distance to primary school children. Sad that its to complicated for the flat earthers

[@AbsurdityViewer]

I've seen many FE videos explain the exact same thing... it's not complicated for FE proponents... why do you think that? when you presuppose circumstances you can get any result you want... you should check out a few FE videos on this subject and you will see much agreement with this video... minus the presupposed circumstances of course.

[@juanausensi499]

@@AbsurdityViewer You can spare us your 'presupposed circumstances' nonsense. When you can't see part of object, it's because something is blocking the part you can't see. The end.

[@thomasetavard2031]

It just goes to show that the "Public Education System" is failing a lot of us, more and more.

[@AbsurdityViewer]

@@thomasetavard2031amen brother, so true

[@AbsurdityViewer]

@@juanausensi499right... why is that so controversial? are you reading something into my comment that isn't there? solid objects block the view of other objects behind them... that's right.

[@NoelMcGinnis]

I can’t believe they thought this was a valid argument. Shouldn’t the top of the ship also start cutting off just like the bottom according to their logic? They will just result to their usual argument… insults.

[@K_End]

All of their "logic" seems to be independent from all the other "logic" otherwise they constantly contradict themselves

[@CrawldaBeast]

As a sailor and a radio tech who has been to the South Pole, I can add a few details. First off, when using the "Big Eyes" binoculars, first thing you see is smoke rising from the ocean. Soon the antenna masts and the stack(s) appear. The ship isn't fully above the horizon until you see the water breaking on the bow. Second is radio wave propagation. There are only two directions to point a directional antenna to work a very distant station. Short path and 180° the opposite direction, long path. When using a frequency that follows the sun, it is possible to work South Africa from the west coast USA in the morning and 180° in the late afternoon. The direction of the antenna confirms the path direction. Yes, the sun travels in a circle at the South Pole making it more like the center than the edge. Also, the ham radio station down there confirmed the location as well. We followed the longitude to the stations we were talking to and they were pointed dead south.

[@bretttrommler756]

Back in my US Navy days I met a few folks that had been stationed at the small research station they had in Antarctica. It used to be you could go there for one year and it counted as two years of sea duty. Pretty good deal if you didn’t have a family or could deal with no civilization for that long. Anyway, every one of them confirmed the 24 hour sunlight thing, not that I doubted it. Flerfs just claim they were paid off by the government to lie about it. Were you there for the 24 hour sunlight?

[@CrawldaBeast]

​@@bretttrommler756 Yes I was there for the 24 hour sunlight. Nobody gave me enough money to say that. The only thing I got from the US Navy was radiation poisoning from living on Treasure Island. But that's another story.

[@bretttrommler756]

@@CrawldaBeast ahhhh…. I feel your pain. I got cancer twice, possibly a third time, over the last two decades because of the US Navy’s primary (back in the 80’s) fire fighting agent.

[@j0hnf_uk]

The fact that there is a horizon and that there are things beyond it in every direction should be enough for anyone, (who's being honest with themselves), to work out that the earth gets in the way of the line of sight, and the only way to explain that is that the earth has curvature to it.

[@doggonemess1]

There's the problem. Flerfers aren't honest with themselves. They're either trolling, lying to support some other conspiracy, or CATASTROPHICALLY stupid. The way they very cleverly use all the obnoxious Alt-Right Rulebook methods to "debunk" actual science tells me that they're not stupid. I'm almost convinced that they're all trolls, with the exception of some people who are suffering from actual mental illness.

[@joeschmo3844]

Anyone with knowledge or experience with radio transmissions can tell you that earth definitely gets in the way of line of sight. On a flat earth the range of a radio transmitter would be limited only by the size of the antenna and how much power you are putting into it.

[@sineout9294]

About half the visible universe is below your horizon at any time. Flat earthers hate that.

[@RayleighCriterion]

@@joeschmo3844 Radio waves can also be absorbed by objects or reflected and will not travel forever at certain frequencies.

[@joeschmo3844]

@@RayleighCriterion like I said, a matter of a big enough antenna and enough power. The range would still be significantly bigger on a flat earth than it is in reality. Flat earth has literally no excuse for the line of sight transmission range limitations that demonstrably exist.

[@thephantomeagle2]

Having spent summers on Lake Michigan I’ve seen many boats go over the horizon, including the SS Badge, a ferry that runs from Ludington Michigan to Manitowoc Wisconsin. It certainly disappears bottom first going and appears top first coming. This always always happens.

[@Scudboy17]

Dave you are a class act. Great explanations of optics and how they work. Keep up the good work and fighting the good fight. Only way to fight ignorance is with education.

[@limpetcarre1139]

It's amazing how you explain these things so that even a 10-year-old child could understand it and yet fully adult Flat Earthers can't understand it.😂

[@Dr-Curious]

They specifically wont understand it because it would break the belief. The belief is really about them, not reality.

[@cobalt4045]

These are the people that sat in the back of elementary school science class asking, "When will I ever need this?"

[@RayleighCriterion]

Dave failed to understand the most important part of the Rayleigh Criterion.

[@Dr-Curious]

@@RayleighCriterion The part you don't understand how to explain and isn't supported by science? Awesome.

[@thomaslove6494]

​@@RayleighCriterionwell if anyone can explain it I would hope you can.... Lol

[@diverdannavyvet9672]

In his livestream yesterday Arwijn went on about all photos showing earth curvature being taken, without exception, using fisheye lenses. Of course he offered zero evidence for his claim. He really should be the poster boy for Dunning - Kruger.

[@kamion53]

the poster boy for Dunning - Kruger ????? too much competition.

[@stephenandrusyszyn3444]

⁠@@kamion53 Maybe we should set up a “Dunning-Kruger of the month” award.

[@andrews882]

I love the Father Ted clip. I really feel that it represents a normal person trying to explain perspective to a flat earther!

[@kamion53]

and it was made years before Internet reached every home and flattardia was widespread.

[@simonmoore8776]

Be fair, even Fr. Dougal McGuire wasn't as stupid as flat-earthers!

[@DavidGoben]

All of your presentations are brilliant! Basic facts throughout. Most flat-earth fanatics I encounter operate under the adage, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullsh--!"

[@mikefochtman7164]

And another classic adage they use, "If you're going to lie, say it with conviction!" lol

[@บัวสีโรเจอร์-ศ9ฝ]

Wow, you're lucky, I usually get answers like 'tree' or 'cardboard' 😂

[@christophercripps7639]

Or act incredulous that the universe is bigger than big or the classic 1,000 mph at the equator!, or tossing insults.

[@flossietube2065]

My son is a flat earther!!! I have truly failed as a father. 😢😔 No matter how hard I try, I can't seem to convince him of the truth. Alas, I have given up and have been forced to exclaim, "stupid is as stupid does!" 🤦

[@Alysm-Aviation]

You have my condolences.

[@need2connect]

If you talk that way about your son, you must also hate yourself.

[@flossietube2065]

@need2connect And if you read my 1st post, you'll notice I do take responsibility for my own son falling for this dumb a$$ flat Earth 💩. I spent WAY too much time in my 18 wheeler paying bills and not enough time teaching him basic knowledge and life skills they obviously didn't teach him in school!!!!!

[@Alan-ez6ji]

@@flossietube2065 he will have a hard time at school, as most classes of history, nature, science, geology... will talk about the globe...

[@flossietube2065]

@@Alan-ez6ji My son is 28 years old!!!

[@MrWaalkman]

I have an 1898 geography grade school book (I bought for the lithography pictures which were simply stunning) and right there in the front of the book is a picture of a sailing ship and an explanation of how we know that the Earth is curved. Which is because the last thing that you see of the ship are the masts as they disappear into the ocean. Or because the ship sank. That happens too.

[@Jan_Strzelecki]

Must be the work of the National Aquatic Sea Agency 😁

[@MrWaalkman]

@@Jan_Strzelecki Indeed. Gotta watch those 19th century UFOs. :)

[@christophercripps7639]

Given that some Flerfs have difficulty converting between km & miles, I am not surprised there is difficulty in understanding the Rayleigh criteria or how a camera lenses more complicated than a point & shoot works. Good thing Dave didn’t start tossing out “F stops.”

[@thearmouredpenguin7148]

Jokely couldn't even convert kilometres to meters.

[@christophercripps7639]

@@thearmouredpenguin7148 So I didn’t remember correctly. Km to meters failure is worse. Does Jokely wonder why a 15% tip is 15 times the bill?

[@grahvis]

I remember a flat earther claiming the length given for the first cable from Ireland to Canada would have been too short if the Earth was a globe. The fool didn't realise nautical miles are longer than statute miles.

[@dainbramage9508]

Finally! Someone brings up the plane perspective argument! According to flerfs we shouldn't be able to see planes that are higher than 3.8 miles yet we do

[@ELSuperLaser]

And yet we can still see the top, which is at the same distance.

[@Flornmonk]

Which is why you can see taller objects farther away, bud.

[@wiggles7976]

I have a $500CAD challenge to zoom in on something that's obstructed by the curved ocean surface and bring the object back into full view. I genuinely would pay $500 for this evidence because bottom-up obstruction has been the primary evidence I've collected to rule out a flat earth, and I would not want to be wrong. Given how many years I've had this challenge, and how I make sure to mention it to every flat earther I encounter who claims you can "zoom to restore" something, it's safe to say that the flat earthers are just making up and parroting BS.

[@John.0z]

Thank you Dave. Now I am waiting to hear all the variations on "you're wrong" from the flat earth lot. It should be good for a laugh.

[@perry92964]

the p1000 makes the necessary adjustments automatically if you bring the object fully out of focus

[@lucasdrudi7231]

The disappearing ships are paid actors

[@Espartanica]

@@perry92964 You think just getting a better camera will bring the ships back into view?

[@cliff.allister]

The main 'argument' (I use that term very loosely here) from flerfers is: "I do not understand it so it must be wrong!"

[@perry92964]

@@Espartanica better then a p 1000? there is no better

[@hancocki]

I'm pretty sure a plane overhead disappearing "bottom up" would allow us to then see into the cargo hold and fuselage.

[@alessandricedric1995]

Except it's always angled parallel to the ground, so no, you'll just see the plane looking like it's "diving" as it goes further.

[@HOLDENPOPE]

I think you missed the point of the comment. They were taking that phrase literally for the sake of a joke.@@alessandricedric1995

[@MadScientist512]

The angular resolution of the eye is also totally irrelevant for the zoomed in picture/videos that they're actually trying to 'debunk.'

[@claireandcolin5314]

In addition to the excellent explanations and arguments from Dave, there's the fact that, in the video from Anthony Bear at 8:39 that zooms in on the little sailboat, THE HORIZON DOESN'T MOVE. Surely if the distance we can see is merely a matter of what our eyes can resolve, then when you zoom in on the horizon with a camera or binoculars or whatever, more ocean should appear, extending further and further back as the resolution increases? Instead, we can observe, in the Flat Earther's own video, that the horizon is an unchanging boundary to sight, even though we all know that the sea continues further and there are whole continents beyond it. Sometimes, as is the case with the horizon to the north of the island I live on, the next body of land (in my case the continent of Australia) might not even be very far away, and yet there is *no magnification* of telescope that will extend the amount of sea I can see, let alone show me the coastline of Victoria.

[@0cgw]

Great video as always Rusty (and Dave).

[@hreader]

A very thorough, workmanlike debunk of something which when I was at school (1960s/70s) was regarded as pure cranky nonsense and easily shown to be nonsense simply by looking out to sea and watching ships disappearing over the horizon, from bottom up as illustrated so well here. And that's before we come to the existence of orbiting satellites from Sputnik onwards. How times change - depressingly. Keep up the good work. Oh, and I like your K9 friend, too!

[@MrPixiepantz]

I had this exact argument with a flerfer about a year ago. When i asked why, if you zoom in to a ship with the bottom missing so it occupies the same angular size as one without, why doesn't the bottom come back? Apparently it's because it has "already reached the angular resolution limit" and you’re just "making it bigger" 🤦‍♂️

[@SDFRiver]

Can we just appreciate how Dave has such smooth segues into sponsor ads? Easy to execute, but hard to master. Dave is a segue legend.

[@GG-gt5ot]

It is amazing that the flerfers use cameras to disprove the laws of optics.

[@davidpawson7393]

The coolest experiment I inadvertently did was have a television on the deck of my house on an Island off the coast of North Carolina with live coverage of a Shuttle launch at night then seeing the Shuttle launch from what looked like out in the ocean several minutes later. Then after going past the mostly full Moon it went down to what an idiot would say and crashed into the ocean. No binoculars or telescope needed. Everything screamed globe. Every day living there screamed globe. We're on a globe. I've known this through basic observations and average intelligence from that same island when I was 9 or so. Globe globe globe. Have a globe day everyone.

[@theforgedone]

I love this channel. Thank you for going through each of their arguments and dismantling them!

[@sCealt]

The sole fact that there's a horizon with a clear separation line between the sea and the sky (on a clear day) suggests that we're on a globe. I don't understand how a grown up person can believe otherwise. If the earth was a disc, there wouldn't be a horizon at all - it'd just fade out in the distance and you could use a telescope to see as far as the weather would allow you.

[@allthingsbing1295]

Plenty of grown ups realize that water has never been measured to have a convex surface.

[@sCealt]

@@allthingsbing1295 too bad for them ;)

[@allthingsbing1295]

@@sCealt have you measured a lake surface to have curvature?

[@sCealt]

​@@allthingsbing1295 why would I waste my time doing that? I've other more important things to do with my life. You should already consider yourself lucky I'm even replying to you. And if you're asking me that as a rethorical question because you think you're awaken or something, just know that you're right about asking yourself those questions. Where you're wrong is when you already start from a contrarian, conspiratorial mindset instead of an open mind, ready to let your ego get hit. Maybe reality, or nature, isn't as thrilling to you as you'd want and that's why you're trying to find conspiracies in everything. But try to understand how nature works and how it relates to the way we evolve as a civilisation - it's a really satisfying feeling. Maybe one day this will make sense to you and you'll realise that. Anyway, you'll thank me when what I've just said will resonate with you ;)

[@allthingsbing1295]

@@sCealt thank you so much for taking time out of your day to enlighten a poor wretched slug like me. I am eternally grateful for the wealth of knowledge you have bestowed upon me this day.

[@tiaraguy7705]

It's embarrassing that people like this exist, I feel so bad for whatever parents have to see there kids become so stupid so willingly.

[@jacobtothe2112]

I have to say your tone is spot-on for serious discussion of the topic. Not condescending. Not insulting. Just clear explanations of the principles involved to rationally explain observations. Keep it up! Anyone honestly questioning the shape of the Earth should be open to which side can demonstrate the best evidence. There's nothing wrong with skepticism, but denial of a spherical earth in the face of clear, verifiable proof anyone can test is absurd.

[@methatis3013]

This dude is the first person that I've seen that doesn't straight up insult the other side. I think that's great.

[@hunglikeahorse120]

Coffee and a new Dave video? Starting this day off just right.

[@timolynch149]

If it was some sort of "perspective" or "limit of our vision", we should all of sudden see a differently shaped boat when we lie on our side and increasing ones altitude should "compress" the boat even more (since your overall distance increases). Not just that, if objects were to shrink "from the bottom up" somehow, why do airplanes high in the sky not do this? Surely, if something flies 10 - 12 km high we should see some of that?

[@JHJHJHJHJH]

See video above...

[@AbsurdityViewer]

they don't 'shrink' from the bottom up... they 'elongate' horizontally unless obscured by even a small wave between you and the object. low level water vapor affects the effect too. a plane at 10k high does not have the same atmosplane thickness to deal with; watch the plane as it gets farther away and slowly meets up with the horizon. if it's still visible by then

[@GeistView]

The Flat Earther "perspective" argument is litterly the Reification Fallacy.

[@bigjules5139]

​@@AbsurdityViewerelongate horizontally? That's a new one! You are one confused individual.

[@RayleighCriterion]

Because the Rayleigh Criterion clearly states that _when two objects are too close together then they become unresolvable_ whereas an airplane in the sky is not next to another object.

[@iseriver3982]

Aren't the bottom of boats famously bigger than the top? Sails, cabins, wheel houses, cranes, and flight control towers of the massive aircraft carriers are all smaller than the boat they're on.

[@Tsudico]

Yeah, it's hilarious that they can claim that a large portion of the hull has become to small in angular size to see yet at the same time you can see the marine radar, which is much smaller, spinning on the bridge of some of these vessels.

[@iseriver3982]

@@Tsudico radar is a great shout, it's just light like visible light, so how does radar work on a flat earth? Do planes which are high in the sky look bigger than the coast line, I doubt it 😅

[@paush51]

I remember seeing/learning that in a kids TV show, when I was 8 maybe . I can remember because I found it so trivial and was like "how can he NOT know this?!"

[@SpinyBadger]

It's a useful exercise to think up ways of illustrating the many flaws in their reasoning, but it sometimes feels like deploying a Sidewinder missile to get rid of an irritating fly.

[@joaohenriqueneuhaus2023]

This is the best explanation to ships dissapearing I ever saw. And I watched quite a few by now...

[@DiscoCol08]

love how your videos explain everything so clearly.

[@res1492]

Yet flerths still don't seem to be able to comprehend them...bizarre, isn't it?

[@phildavenport4150]

@@res1492 Not really. Science, math and logic are irrelevant to them. Theirs is a world of received faith, which is impervious to the realities of the world around them.

[@Forest_Fifer]

I was at North Berwick today, on the south shore of the river Forth. They had kne of those binoculars in the sea wall, which i used to look the Fife coast on the north side of the Forth which i know well, having grown up there. Funnily enough, i could see the tops of tower blocks but not the bottoms, wind turbine platforms under construction onshore which appeared to be cut in half, missing football stadiums, etc. Flerfspective is a wonderful thing.

[@GetMoGaming]

I can't believe a video has to be made to explain to adults something a child can understand.

[@tjjones621]

@@jdog2901 No, there are not a lot of people that believe in trolls and fairies. Is there any conspiracy you haven't fallen for yet? The funniest thing about you is how you write like you think you are an expert.

[@tjjones621]

@@jdog2901 "a million videos are made proclaiming how stupid this flat earth person is." That's how stoopid it is.

[@tjjones621]

@@jdog2901 Did you see this comment?... @GetMoGaming 16 hours ago Ships disappear because of dragons and wormholes, dummy.

[@GetMoGaming]

@@jdog2901 What? A million videos are made because it's easy to prove the earth is a spheroid. It's NoT easy to prove something D0ESN'T exist. Like Bigfoot, fairies and God. I agree though, a lot of people are jumping on the views wagon for this, that's why I don't "like" the videos. It's too easy. They have to teach me something to get a like. Btw, that feeling you're being lied to is just paranoia, made worse by KZbin videos that lie to you about conspiracy theories for views. But you can't sense that BS because they are feeding your paranoia, so you trust them. They are the biggest spreaders of misinformation, and that's a fact.

[@tjjones621]

@@jdog2901 Oh, yes you are....

[@BlackClaws]

You know what I really want to see disappear over the horizon? Flat Earthers.

[@rafaelmarangoni]

Good one! Although I fear for water pollution.

[@Tyrell_Corp2019]

Imagine explaining to adults what a kid understands. Guess someone's gotta do it.

[@kenbrown2808]

and then there's always, "if our sight distance is limited by optical limits, why can we see further when we're in an airplane than we can see standing on the ground?"

[@Katy_Jones]

Or, "why is radar subject to these optical limits?"

[@uwillnevahno6837]

I discovered a flat earth livestream exists on youtube. They have a discord where all they do is yell, rage, deny, deflect and ban you for.... "doing the research" by asking questions.

[@Isolder74]

Which one you pretty much described all of them.

[@uwillnevahno6837]

@@Isolder74 lol I can't recall anything beyond just how smooth brained they are.

[@MAZakir2]

You know, I actually have a question for the flerfers that stick so much to their “perspective causes things to vanish bottom-up” They always come back to their “curvature debunked” proof of looking at a faraway island and say “I shouldn’t see that island!”. Well first of all they can’t see the base shorelines (because it’s blocked off by the curvature) while the higher parts are still visible. But what they don’t know, is that that very “proof” attacks their claim of perspective. Looking at the islands they usually choose, the higher elevation areas are found in the middle of the island (let’s use a hill). So from the person’s view at sea level, if the Earth was flat, the distance between the eyes and the shoreline is shorter than the distance to the top of the hill. By their reason of “farther things are smaller than closer things”, then the island should vanish top-down, because the summit of the hill is farther away from the shoreline. So that’s my question: If perspective causes farther things to get smaller, why is the summit of the hill still visible while the shoreline/base of the hill is not, if the summit of the hill is farther away from the viewer’s eyes at sea level? Shouldn’t the island appear to disappear top-down?

[@RockinRobbins13]

Best explanation outside the amateur astronomy community I've seen of the Rayleigh Criterion. That was crystal clear and unmistakable enough that our normal Flatopian snipers can't attack it successfully.

[@starroger]

Great video!!! I never heard of the Rayleigh Criterion before watching this video. I always learn something new by watching Dave's videos. Keep up the good work!

[@whereswa11y]

Love it Dave. I feel a triggering arising in certain sections.

[@jimsmith7212]

"I felt a great disturbance in the Flerf, as if dozens of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced."

[@ThoughtandMemory]

⁠@@jimsmith7212append the last part, “suddenly silenced”, to “suddenly very upset and quite vocal about it”. 😂

[@roohif]

One correction: zooming in doesn't increase the angular size. It's just that the optics have a higher diffraction limit.

[@Sableagle]

I would say it decreases the pixels' individual angular sizes, which has the same effect as increasing the subject's angular size in terms of the number of pixels the subject covers, but does nothing to help with diffraction. If you have twelve meg taking a four degree by three degree picture, that's one thousand pixels per degree. With 645 nm red light your resolving limit is going to be one pixel with a 45 mm aperture. Without that aperture, more magnification's a waste of materials. If you have a 90 mm aperture, you can zoom in that far just fine. If you only have a 10 mm aperture, you may as well stop at 18 x 13½ degree field of view.

[@greyfade]

Well done on the editing here! I love the zoom effect on your LCD display explanation.

[@jibblehardicardi3827]

I live on the coast next to one of Europe's biggest wind farms. The nearby turbines are enormous but for some reason they have installed progressively smaller ones further from shore. It seems very dangerous as the blades must be nearly hitting the water. I'm sure someone could invent an entirely new branch of science to explain this

[@minitalon]

Um they say we have a finite limit to our sight? Then how can we see the moon which according to them is 3k miles away? Wouldn't that mean we should be able to see 3k miles across the earth if it was flat?

[@stephenolan5539]

They don't understand that vision occurs in the eye. It doesn't matter how far a photon traveled before triggering a receptor.

[@Echo_III]

It is so stupid that you have to explain this to adults.

[@thearmouredpenguin7148]

They may be in an adult body, but their mental age is stuck in (low) single figures.

[@jesusisalive3227]

I have yet to get an answer when I ask them to explain why I have to take into account the rotation of the earth while taking a long distance shot with my rifle.

[@johng.1703]

it does seem as if the 3 mile "angular limit" only seems to be a thing when it is close to the earth, it's almost as if the earth has a curvature that blocks a viewer from seeing part of the thing until it blocks all of it.

[@miker953]

Would they just get in a damn boat and sail around Antarctica already?? If it's always on the same side of the boat and your course corrections are slowly in that same direction to keep from passing it... and you end up where you started, you just sailed around the whole thing and it's not an edge around a flat world holding the oceans in place.

[@chtrouvpadnom]

I really enjoy your videos. I actually don't care much for flat earth, but the facts you present are always interesting. Moreover, you stay calm, speak clearly and articulate ; as a non english viewer it's enjoyable not to have to concentrate to understand. Thank you !

[@Pseudoplasmagore]

I think his accent is a bit hard for me as a non-native speaker to understand at times, but I guess it's just me!

[@chtrouvpadnom]

@@Pseudoplasmagore I really enjoy how he speaks ! Maybe enable english subtitles, english is not my native tongue either and I know it helps me sometimes

[@icansciencethat]

Minor correction... @8:30 you say the angular size of the leaves is larger when zoomed in. Angular size does not change with focal length/zoom. The leaves have the same angular size, but that angle is spread across more of the sensor.

[@cascadesouthernmodeltrains7547]

I had a flatard try to convince me that the human eye cannot see things more than 1000 miles away. She also said the sun and moon are both 3000 miles away and the exact same size. I said to her , if my eyes are incapable of seeing more than 1000 miles then why can I see the moon and sun which are supposed to be only 3000 miles away. She had no good reasoning. I also told her that if earth were flat then when I was stationed in Virginia, I should have been able to see the Eifle Tower with no issues. She claimed again our eyes are only capable of 1000 miles. I said I would use binoculars to which she said were also only good for 1K.

[@reinerhoch1357]

I have had that same argument too. I would ask then: If I take a telescope and looked at the moon I can see details on the moon which is 3000 Miles away and 50 miles wide according to their saying. So why in hell can't I take the same telescope and point it at the united states from the coast of portugal. The coast of the united states is easy the same distance but unlike that tiny moon over 1000 miles wide and lit up at night. So to their logic the coast of the Unoted States should be easier to see than the moon but in real life I can see the moon almost every clear night and the coast of the united states, well NEVER!

[@tracytron7162]

No reason to use damn slurs dude

[@d.charlespyle]

Flerfs: "We see too far...therefore, erf flat!" Also, flerfs: "We can't see that far! Therefore, space fake and erf flat!" Also, flerfs: "The sun and moon are 3,000 miles away!" Also, flerfs: "The sun and moon dip down into the clouds!" (No thought for the fact that clouds generally are no more than 5 or six miles up.) Also, flerfs: "We cannot see more than 12 miles! Therefore, moon is plasma!" Also, flerfs: "You cannot send a rocket to the moon because rockets need an atmosphere to push against!" Also, flerfs: "The moon is in earth's atmosphere and is inside the firmament!" The amount of flerf mental gymnastics required to believe in flat earth is absolutely astounding!

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

A whole stew of lies, and not one of them works without all of the others being impossible.

[@NorthernLupine123]

If....... our vision is limited..... How can we see the moon?

[@Arltratlo]

i am born at a coast in northern Europe.... i saw at a young age, how ships disappear at the horizon.... civilian or military ships... i went last year to a ship parade....the sailing ships did what i expected them to do sails top first, bottom later to see... funny thing, the same happened while i have been in New Zealand! been 11km high in the air on a flight over the Indian ocean....and i saw the ships and wave crests...

[@4jonah]

Flat earthers: Speaking personally, I am smarter than the entire collective cabal of every pilot, sailor, geographer, scientist, photographer, geologist, engineer, cartographer, videographer, mountain climber, and schizophrenic who are each paid off by "them" to hide the truth that feelings don't care about your facts.

[@derp8575]

Just braver. Anyone can understand that the earth is flat. Most people are cowards who prefer popularity over truth.

[@DarrellLarose]

Is there any truth to the rumour that Nikon's P1000 owner's manual has this disclaimer; "Adult supervision required"???

[@tjjones621]

Yes. It also says on the top, this side up.

[@MrDanAng1]

If the Rayleigh criterion is responsible for the bottom of a boat disappear first... sure, the bottom of the boat is slightly smaller than the top, so... let's accept it! But then again, if we are on a boat, sailing away from a seaside mountain, that mountain should dissapear from the top and down, since the top is smaller than the base. This follows directly from the acceptance of the Rayleigh criterion as responsible for the observation!

[@Katy_Jones]

They get upset when you point things like that out. Although all they can do is pretend they DIDN'T make that claim. Another fun one is asking them to explain exactly how pouring water over a tiny ball disproves gravity.

[@therealzilch]

Flat Earthers haven't the slightest idea what the Raleigh Criterion is, so they invoke it hoping that no one else knows either.

[@MrDanAng1]

@@Katy_Jones Of course they don't like when pointing things like this out... they ONLY accept any evidence that at least at surface level support their preconcieved conclusion. When someone have a conclusion and try to make the evidence fit, it's a pseudo science.

[@tjjones621]

They all use the globe map for directions to the departure port... FE is comedy gold.

[@dunningkruger-o1x]

Set up the b/s strawman [ mountain should dissapear (sic) from the top and down, since the top is smaller than the base ] -- then proceed to burn it down smurfs are very predictable.

[@roboknight]

Great video, Dave. This is definitely my favorite argument for why Earth isn't flat. I saw your video about airplanes and how that's likely the easiest experiment you can do yourself (with the sunlight underneath them). And, you made a good point about not everyone having access to the ocean or a lake, but as you pointed out in this video, watching something vanish over a hill and then finding a flat road and watching cars vanish bottom up works pretty well. Except you might actually get more heat coming from the road interfering. At any rate, I do really love watching when you debunk the word salad arguments flerfs come up with. Good stuff.

[@robertkerr4199]

What is the limit of my vision, dear flat-earthers? I can see stars that are billions of light years away...

[@psterud]

Doesn't having different stars in the sky depending on where one is on Earth kind of destroy the flat earth thing? Especially since the rotation of the celestial sphere can be so easily shown?

[@mikep9604]

Yes, some constellations visible in one hemisphere are not visible in the other hemisphere due to the earth's curvature which means that the earth itself blocks the observer's field of view, and this shows the earth is not flat. And we can see Polaris in the Northern Hemisphere but it is not visible for example in Australia in the Southern Hemisphere because of the curvature of the earth.

[@tjjones621]

Yes, but they will just use their all in one fallback.. perspective. (as they drive around with the globe map on their dashboards.) LOL

[@throwawayavclubber7269]

They just make something up.

[@barrymiller3385]

I went to school in Dover. On a clear day (admittedly something of a rarity!) you could clearly see France from the top of the cliffs. You could not, however, see France from the beach. I don't remember ever having to explain why this should be!

[@stephenolan5539]

You can see France from Canada.

[@peterl9468]

I live in Guernsey and we can very often see Alderney,Jersey and France.France is up to 30 miles away (Cap de la Hague).That is up to 27 miles over the horizon on the globe model.Impossible.

[@stephenolan5539]

@@peterl9468 What altitude? And why only very often not always? And people have seen ships floating in the air.

[@peterl9468]

@@stephenolan5539 Obviously visibility varies day-to-day.France is visible from the east coast beach ,which is obviously at sea level.France is 25+ miles over/beyond the horizon on a globe model.Obviously impossible.

[@peterl9468]

I've never seen ships floating in the air.I know long-range laser & camera tests have been done to show salt-flats & canals are obviously dead-level.Dean Odle is good on all this.The Bedford Levels tests were done on canals in the UK.

[@violetfactorial6806]

I love the little snippets of education I get from your videos. Using flerf trolls foolishness as a springboard is just a bonus bit of entertainment to go along with it :D

[@geoffJa]

it is a limit to our vision....we can not see through solid objects :)

[@ruor1984]

But sometimes it's flerfspective. You can never rule that out, it works in magical ways.