Search results

That's true - but would it even look like a horizon if it was at 'the edge'? Probably we'd notice there was something weird going on if we were there. Really, it's an excellently simple flat earth disproof: there couldn't be any horizons on a flat earth unless you were close to the edge - and...

In other forums, it's normal. But at metabunk the technique is to: - Post one claim of evidence (eg, "photo of Wales impossible on a globe") - Investigate that claim - Explain it (eg, "with unusual but not uncommon atmospheric conditions it's perfectly normal") - Stay on topic - And if other...

What would cause this 'edge'?

This thread has gone waaaaaaay off topic: it's supposed to be about a photograph of Wales, but now it's on to water, pendulums, the moon, etc. Suggest a split and moving to 'Rambles'?

If the Earth were flat there wouldn't actually be a horizon. Also, that diagram doesn't really make sense because it's showing the observer looking down at the edge rather than a hypothetical horizon. Plus the scale on it is nuts. :)

@Viggo - here's the thread you want for this one. :) There are lots and lots of photos and videos that show the horizon doesn't rise to eye level, and it's very simple to do this observation for yourself. On a commercial aeroplane you look down to the horizon at an angle of about three...

I should add a Jos Leys video to this thread: he does tremendous little animations that show what angles to the sun we can (and do) measure ourselves result in on the two different models, such as this one: Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HgFT9Yu0JY Some more of his videos and...

Hi Viggo, for all the different simple observations and experiments I posted probably the best thing to do if you have any questions is to go to the threads I linked, read everything that's previously been said, and then post your thoughts there so that everything stays nice and neat and on...

As you said, it is unlikely, which is why the photo made the news. How many days per year is this view available? If you were to go there today and tomorrow and spend a few weeks looking towards Wales, how often would this be seen? Probably pretty rarely would be my guess: probably on most days...

It's just this:

Woking's fairly close to Lee-on-the-Solent. About 45 miles.

Further down on the Skeptic.com page the guy does an overlay of the 'ghost' face: A good match up. Though would it not be expected that at least one of the other men in the photo would also show up blurred/differently positioned?

More pertinent to this is that Sheffield is at the other end of the country to Lee-on-Solent.

Seems like it's a collaboration between the 'manic depression lunar guy' (Wehr) and the 'intermittent menstrual synchrony woman' (Helfrich-Förster). Judging by the conclusion, I guess they're putting a lot of stock into their respective studies - totalling about 39 subjects, iirc - when perhaps...

Have you seen the dedicated Lake Balaton thread @Rodoxag? https://www.metabunk.org/threads/lake-balaton-laser-experiment-to-determine-the-curvature-of-the-earth-if-any.7780/ 26 pages of discussion, much of it involving Sandor Szekely, taking place before, during and after their 2016 'experiment'.

Thanks for pointing that out. It was interesting to read the shortcomings and problems with the Pearl Index. Seems like it's about time they replaced it with something a bit more accurate and representative.

Related to another current thread talking about unlikely occurrences still occurring, I wonder why they've framed it as "15 per year"? If something is "85% effective" doesn't that mean it fails 15 out of every 100 uses? And therefore the actual yearly rate would depend on how often it was used...

Nah, that's a real thing - though a woman can still get pregnant any day of the cycle, including on her period (chance quoted as "close to zero" though). Lots of graphs like this one online:

It's quite interesting running the 'test' several times: this can be done quickly by pressing backspace in any empty cell. For 428 cows/births it doesn't take too many runs to arrive at figures of up to 33 births per day (+131% above the average) and as low as 3 bpd (-79%). This seems to me...

Yeah, that makes pretty much zero sense. The "drop" figure is irrelevant when talking about hidden amount and "let's say the land in between the two mountains is 1200" (and what follows) seems like something plucked out of thin air. I guess you'd have to get them to agree on how these things...