Premise : The world is spherical.
Observation : The horizon obscures objects from the bottom up as they recede.
Conclusion : Therefore the world is spherical.
This is circular logic, and hence a logical error - right?
Here is your example, distilled.
Premise : The world is flat.
Observation : I can zoom in on distant ships no longer visible and see the ship and horizon behind them.
Conclusion Therefore the world is flat.
Like the globe believers view, the observation may support the premise - but the conclusion doesn’t (necessarily) follow from it. The conclusion follows from the premise, hence the circular logic.
Furthermore the real trick here is that the ships being zoomed in on in the video are not beyond the horizon yet, they are too close to the observer (for the viewing/weather conditions anyway - we know that the apparent horizon varies in distance with those conditions). If they were obscured (or partially obscured) as in the observation from the globe perspective - then zooming in on them will not unobscure/reveal them.
The reason the boats are no longer visible in your video is NOT because the horizon has obscured them, but because they have (apparently, not actually!) shrunk to be too small to see unaided due to their distance from the observer.
Because the ship can be seen at a distance that is farther than would be possible on a curved earth.
This is surely evidence that something is wrong with the globe model, but different than proving the world flat or spherical. As we know, a die hard believer will just say “refraction” (or some other contrived explanation) and continue to believe the horizon is a fixed edge even when such distant observations are confirmed anyway.
it took me hearing flat earth a lot of times before i actually did the work to research myself. yes, repetition
We were convinced the world was spherical through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education. Undoing that bias takes the same repetition.
I’ll try to distill it.
In the case of the globe perspective :
Premise : The world is spherical.
Observation : The horizon obscures objects from the bottom up as they recede.
Conclusion : Therefore the world is spherical.
This is circular logic, and hence a logical error - right?
Here is your example, distilled.
Premise : The world is flat.
Observation : I can zoom in on distant ships no longer visible and see the ship and horizon behind them.
Conclusion Therefore the world is flat.
Like the globe believers view, the observation may support the premise - but the conclusion doesn’t (necessarily) follow from it. The conclusion follows from the premise, hence the circular logic.
Furthermore the real trick here is that the ships being zoomed in on in the video are not beyond the horizon yet, they are too close to the observer (for the viewing/weather conditions anyway - we know that the apparent horizon varies in distance with those conditions). If they were obscured (or partially obscured) as in the observation from the globe perspective - then zooming in on them will not unobscure/reveal them.
The reason the boats are no longer visible in your video is NOT because the horizon has obscured them, but because they have (apparently, not actually!) shrunk to be too small to see unaided due to their distance from the observer.
This is surely evidence that something is wrong with the globe model, but different than proving the world flat or spherical. As we know, a die hard believer will just say “refraction” (or some other contrived explanation) and continue to believe the horizon is a fixed edge even when such distant observations are confirmed anyway.
We were convinced the world was spherical through conditioning by rote from childhood under the guise of education. Undoing that bias takes the same repetition.