What would change your mind?

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.

You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. 

I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 01, 2020, 02:27:05 PM

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.

You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. 

I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.

Frustration, sure. But not exactly panic. That'd mean RE is losing.

And yeah, waiting for your picture of the horizon.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 30, 2020, 02:20:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 01:03:07 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 29, 2020, 03:45:45 AM

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?

The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.

However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.

So are we OK with step 3 now?

How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?

Suppose you have a roundabout/carousel/merry-go-round - whatever you want to call it. One of those things you find in a children's playground.

Paint a pattern of stars on it.

Have an observer sit on it. Get another observer standing by the trees, some distance away. Now start turning the roundabout very slowly. Once per day. Do the trees start moving? Of course not, they are literally rooted to the spot where they grow. Do the painted stars start moving around, changing position on the roundabout? Of course not.

Things may appear to rotate for both observers, but if each records a timelapse with a 24h interval between frames, then actually nothing moves at all. By all means speed up the roundabout. Doesn't make any difference. Take a timelapse once per revolution and you can see nothing changes. Each painted star remains in the same position on the roundabout, exactly where it was painted. Each tree remains where it was planted.

The stars behave in the same way. Point a camera at the sky. Take a timelapse, with a frame rate of one (sidereal) day. No star moves. They are all fixed.

In addition, no matter where you move to, how far away you move. The stars won't change position. That's all there is to it. They are fixed. Sure they rotate around the two celestial poles, just like the roundabout or the trees rotate for the respective observers, but nothing changes position.

It doesn't matter one bit how far away the stars are, what they are made of, whether they are rotating or whether the earth is rotating. All that matters is they are fixed in place and can be used as a reference for comparison with anything else which isn't - such as the moon or the planets.

OK with this now? Shall we move on to step 4?

If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.

1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.

2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.

I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 30, 2020, 02:48:30 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on October 30, 2020, 02:14:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 12:56:01 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 03:17:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:02:26 AM

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.

Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.

You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.

No. I'm saying I refuse to believe something that is supposedly tried and tested but is not shown as any proof.

No you are not.
You are dismissing that "proof" as cheating.
What your actions indicate (and even some of your statements) is that you refuse to accept anything that doesn't agree with you.

For examples, you explicitly stated that you will not accept anything about the horizon that you do not "know".
The problem is that you don't know, instead you just spout the same refuted lies again and again.
At least one of which isn't refuted by evidence, but by a logical proof.

So know, what it clearly means is that you will not accept anything that doesn't agree with you. If it shows you are wrong, you will reject or ignore it rather than admit you are wrong.
If that wasn't the case then you would have either admitted you were wrong about the RE horizon or provided an actual justification for your repeatedly lies and a refutation of the counter arguments.

How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?

Do you mean their angular position relative to an observer on Earth? If so, that varies by roughly 15 degrees by hour.
But that was already dealt with, so why bring it up?

Why have you put the convergence point to the left?

Because that is where those parallel lines meet (when extended).
It is still well above the horizon, clearly showing the horizon is NOT THE CONVERGANCE POINT!

In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.

It is quite clearly you, for still not accepting the well established (and proven) fact that the horizon is easily observed to be below eye level; that it does not magically rise to eye level and is not magically at the convergence point.

So it is quite clearly you who does not give a damn about the truth at all.

This one simple thing kills off your globe with absolutely no need to go farther.

If that was the case why haven't you been able to rationally respond to the objections and questions regarding it?
That sure seems like it doesn't kill off the globe.
Meanwhile, the horizon clearly observed to be below eye level quite firmly kills off your FE nonsense.

Again, it isn't the indoctrinated globe model.
It is the globe model which actually matches reality and which is backed up by mountains of evidence, and which you are yet to demonstrate any problem with.

If you tell me a tennis ball in the distance is actually 100 feet tall but only looks so small due to distance, I will want some proof.

We aren't talking about a tennis ball.
We are talking about the moon. The closest object comparable to it within your reach is Earth itself.

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned.

And in doing so, they show your claim to be pure garbage. Yet you keep ignoring that.
But I wouldn't call that amusing. I would call it pathetic.

This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

Probably because they don't fake it, and don't expect people to be completely insane and dismiss it as fake.

But this is why the water filled tube is better, it shows the level at the same time as the photo is taken.
You have clear tubes, clearly showing the water level, connected by a pipe at the bottom.
Yet you still just dismiss it as fake.

If someone did provide a video you would either find some other excuse to dismiss it as fake, perhaps dismissing it as CGI or special effects, or just completely ignore it; like you do with everything that shows you are wrong.

Now again, care to address the multitude of issues you are yet to address regarding your many blatant lies?

Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?


If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.


Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.

Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).

Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.

re your reply #1168 I read nothing in that which changes my position from reply #1154.  You are simply setting your own framework about what you accept as proof so you can claim your are right. Anything which falls outside of that framework as far as you are concerned is not proof.  That is not how proof works.  Proof is proof.  Evidence is evidence.  Even if it doesn't fall in line with your beliefs. 

Fair enough you read books. But why waste your time reading any books if they don't say what you want to believe? Your whole attitude doesn't work for me so until that position changes I have nothing further to say to you.

And this time I do mean it.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 01, 2020, 02:27:05 PM

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.

You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. 

I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.

Lol! You're doing fine after you brought a basketball close enough to your eye to see it creates a horizon?    I don't think you are. That frustrated panic you smell is yourself perspiring heavily. Beads of sweat across your brow.

Good to see you're back, though, crapping all over these fine scientific experiments just as I predicted.

Quote from: Stash on October 31, 2020, 02:13:01 PM

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.

This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 30, 2020, 03:54:38 AM

If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?

The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.

Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?

Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.

In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.

Just to really ram the point home:



Every component of this frame is pointing towards a single convergence point, including the horizontal string which cuts straight across the two liquid levels. This convergence point is clearly above the extended (yellow) horizon line.

Move the camera up or down a tiny amount and the two liquid levels won't line up. The only way to change the gap between the green line and the yellow extended horizon line is to move the camera up or down, which means you are no longer level.

Sceptimatic needs to show us their experiment with similar variables. As I keep hearing the findings are different.

How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?

Take the star Mintaka which is the right-most (western) star in Orions belt.  What is the time difference between rising and setting for this star?  Answer is 12 hours to the nearest whole number and that is true regardless of your location. Where is this star?  Very near to the celestial equator.  What is the angular distance on the sky between the east point and the west point?  180 degrees.  So the sky rotates 180 degrees over 12 hours.  That is 15 degrees per hour. 

So the sky rotates westwards through an angle of 180 degrees over 12 hours.  that makes 360 degrees over 24 hours.  Scepti can you prove that it is not the Earth rotating eastwards through 360 degrees over 24 hours making it seem like the sky is rotating westwards? RE have measured the Earth circumference at the equator to be 24,859.734 miles.  That distance divided by 24 hours gives an equatorial rotation speed of 1035.82mph.

The Moon and Sun move by several degrees per day relative to the stars indicating they are nearby compared to the stars.  The Moon more so than the Sun indicating it is nearest. The Moon completes one circuit of the celestial sphere each month (29.5 days) while it takes the Sun one year.  The planets move relative to the stars as well but to a lesser extent as we move through the solar system. Only Mercury and Venus never reach opposition indicating they are nearer the Sun then Earth. The stars remain fixed relative to each other indicating they are very distant.

If you travel in a car or on a train you will notice that the objects nearest to you seem to pass by you quickly while objects further away go by much more slowly.  Displacement is proportional to distance.  I could travel 100 miles on a train and the scenery outside the window when I set off would be completely different compared to what I see when I reach end of journey.  But if I could see the Moon when I set off I would still see it when I arrived.  I would never lose visual contact with the Moon.

I shouldn't have to say any of this because it should surely be common knowledge and common sense.  Anyone disagree with any of the above?  If you do then fine but offer your own version.  With evidence of course.

I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light.

If stars are 'reflections' as you seem to believe then perhaps you could offer an explanation for as to why the spectral lines we see in the spectra of stars vary so much.  If all the stars were simply reflections of a single source (this crystal you keep going on about for example) then all stellar spectra would be the same wouldn't they.  Reflected light from the same source would produce the same spectral profile.

As it is the spectral lines vary quite considerably. Particularly those of different colours.  Whereas stars of the same colour tend to show similar spectral lines. Thus providing evidence that they are each independent sources of light.

So forgive me if I don't buy into light year stars and big rocky moons floating about in space vacuums at the sizes I'm told.

I don't need to forgive you for anything.  You can't buy into anything from my point of view because I am not selling anything.  I'm just telling you things as they are. Whenever I point out anything I always support it with evidence.  It really doesn't matter to me what you choose to buy into. Or not as the case may be. 

Quote from: JJA on October 30, 2020, 01:55:08 PM

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

Don't forget a few things.
A spirit level and a scope with a crosshair and bring your 100% honesty and let's see the outcome.
Oh...one more thing: You can use any elevation you want to.

You need to be more clear and descriptive than "spirit level and a scope with a crosshair" if you want anyone to try your experiment.

Why don't you perform it and take pictures and share them?  Show your designs and setup.

Quote from: Stash on October 31, 2020, 02:13:01 PM

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.

It just shows the set-up. The whole point of mounting the tube on a spirit level is to make sure it's level. Otherwise, why bother? If I showed an image of the bubble being level you would still say that it was level and tilted for the result. As for a video, I guess I could show a level spirit level then pan and move back around the camera and show the live view on the back of the camera which would show the same thing as here. But I'm sure you would come up with some reason around how our eyes work that makes it appear that way or some other nonsense.

The real question is why you automatically assume it's a fabrication? That's sort of a mystery.

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.

Again, why do you assume it's fake? Especially without any evidence that it is fake. Can you show us your set-up and results?

To the original question, whatever the truth is, that's what I'll accept in the end. My own inquest to understnading has involved a lot of research on anomalous science and supressed inventions and whatnot. The evidence for theories of the unknown and unmentioned facts.
 I myself have witnessed a lack of curvature, and i think they try to hide a lot of things from us. So just because someone repeats the common understnading and it's documentation, doesn't convince me they ultimately know what the truth is.

Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario, so the fact that they say "in this scenario we use this formula" or certain rules apply - i don't think i am willing to take their word for it when other important things  are overlooked in the mainstream litterature.

I myself have witnessed a lack of curvature

You keep saying this, but you are yet to substantiate it in any meaningful way.
Just what have you observed that indicates a lack of curvature?
Did you do the math to see just what you should see?
Did you factor refraction into it?

Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario, so the fact that they say "in this scenario we use this formula" or certain rules apply - i don't think i am willing to take their word for it when other important things  are overlooked in the mainstream litterature.

Care to provide an example?
The constants typically used are derived by experiment.
As for the formula, they will typically use the simplest formula which gives accurate enough results.

Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario, so the fact that they say "in this scenario we use this formula" or certain rules apply - i don't think i am willing to take their word for it when other important things  are overlooked in the mainstream litterature.

Now that we live in an age of fake news and alternative facts could you provide an actual example that we could discuss?

Also, i believe that a lot of scientific proof relies upon unseen "constants" that aren't immediately obviously involved in the scenario,

That's what learning is about isn't it? Researching something which isn't immediately obvious?  Why does the Sun emit light for example? The reasons are not immediately obvious and were unknown for a long time.  We had to discover nuclear physics before we could work out how the Sun could emit so much energy for so long.   I'm doing assignments for my solar astrophysics course at the moment and some of the questions involve researching specific topics to quite a deep level before the answers can be identified. To learn anything we must obtain new information from other people whose knowledge or experience is better than ours.  We 'take their word' for it because we trust them.

When kids taken their GCSE exams all the information needed to reach an answer is given to them.  At A level they have to work out some of the information needed for themselves and part of the learning process involves recognising links between topics which are not obvious at first but become more obvious as you understanding of a topic improves.  By the time you get to degree level most of the learning is done by the student.  The 'teachers' are simply there to guide.

A lot of things aren't immediately obvious in scientific 'proof'  if it was it would be boring and unchallenging.  Learning all these things which aren't immediately obvious is what makes it fun. 

To the original question, whatever the truth is, that's what I'll accept in the end. My own inquest to understnading has involved a lot of research on anomalous science and supressed inventions and whatnot. The evidence for theories of the unknown and unmentioned facts.
 I myself have witnessed a lack of curvature, and i think they try to hide a lot of things from us. So just because someone repeats the common understnading and it's documentation, doesn't convince me they ultimately know what the truth is.

I, myself have witnessed a lack of curvature from sea level, which is expected on the accepted size of the earth globe, but I have not experienced increased flatness with increased altitude. There is mountains of evidence earth is a globe and zero evidence to support it is a flat plane.

We are talking about the shape of the planet, upon which billions of humans have walked upon before you came along. If you would prefer to sit on the fence about the size and shape of this planet, I can only wonder what is wrong with you.

That is completely true.  I was on a cruise recently and during a 'sea day' when the weather was fine and clear with excellent visibility I scanned the horizon in all directions and it looked perfectly flat.

Then I reasoned that the horizon was also the same distance away in all directions and since the rate of curvature on a sphere is constant across its whole surface area I figured that given the very small amount of the total surface area of Earth that you can see at any one time from sea level then that is entirely what you would expect.

As your height increases so too does the amount of surface that you can see so there will come a point where you can start to see evidence of curvature.  I agree that given the number of humans have lived on up to now I think we've had more than enough time to work out what the shape of the planet is that we walk on.  So either you accept the evidence that is available to all or you don't.  Those who don't have to come up with their own suggestions AND provide the evidence to support it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 10:38:10 PM

How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?

Suppose you have a roundabout/carousel/merry-go-round - whatever you want to call it. One of those things you find in a children's playground.

Paint a pattern of stars on it.

Have an observer sit on it. Get another observer standing by the trees, some distance away. Now start turning the roundabout very slowly. Once per day. Do the trees start moving? Of course not, they are literally rooted to the spot where they grow. Do the painted stars start moving around, changing position on the roundabout? Of course not.

The trees start moving to the observer on the roundabout and the painted stars on the roundabout will move for the observer in the trees.
They are rooted to the spot...yes....but only for the person rooted to the spot, with them.

Things may appear to rotate for both observers, but if each records a timelapse with a 24h interval between frames, then actually nothing moves at all. By all means speed up the roundabout. Doesn't make any difference. Take a timelapse once per revolution and you can see nothing changes. Each painted star remains in the same position on the roundabout, exactly where it was painted. Each tree remains where it was planted.

It's definitely a case of them appearing to move, as above.
So, basically, you are on your ball Earth that has everything rooted to the spot, as you are....and the so called stars are moving, or your ball is moving.....but.....let's not forget that your Earth is a ball and not a roundabout, unless you want to be arguing this from a flat Earth circle mindset.
I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to feed me.

The stars behave in the same way. Point a camera at the sky. Take a timelapse, with a frame rate of one (sidereal) day. No star moves. They are all fixed.

In addition, no matter where you move to, how far away you move. The stars won't change position. That's all there is to it. They are fixed. Sure they rotate around the two celestial poles, just like the roundabout or the trees rotate for the respective observers, but nothing changes position.

But the points of light do change position from where you are. They do not stay rooted to a position from the observers view over time, not matter how fast or slow that time is.

It doesn't matter one bit how far away the stars are, what they are made of, whether they are rotating or whether the earth is rotating. All that matters is they are fixed in place and can be used as a reference for comparison with anything else which isn't - such as the moon or the planets.

OK with this now? Shall we move on to step 4?

No I'm obviously not ok with this.

If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.

1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.

We can do this if you want.

2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.

We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.

I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.

Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 10:40:04 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 30, 2020, 02:48:30 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on October 30, 2020, 02:14:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 12:56:01 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 03:17:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:02:26 AM

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.

Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.

You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.

Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?

re your reply #1168 I read nothing in that which changes my position from reply #1154.  You are simply setting your own framework about what you accept as proof so you can claim your are right. Anything which falls outside of that framework as far as you are concerned is not proof.  That is not how proof works.  Proof is proof.  Evidence is evidence.  Even if it doesn't fall in line with your beliefs. 

Fair enough you read books. But why waste your time reading any books if they don't say what you want to believe? Your whole attitude doesn't work for me so until that position changes I have nothing further to say to you.

And this time I do mean it.

Make sure you stick to it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 11:02:01 PM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 01, 2020, 02:27:05 PM

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.

You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. 

I'm doing absolutely fine but I do sense frustrated panic among some of you.

Lol! You're doing fine after you brought a basketball close enough to your eye to see it creates a horizon?    I don't think you are. That frustrated panic you smell is yourself perspiring heavily. Beads of sweat across your brow.

Good to see you're back, though, crapping all over these fine scientific experiments just as I predicted.

Making stuff up may make you feel good but it adds nothing. Up your game.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 11:00:07 PM

Quote from: Stash on October 31, 2020, 02:13:01 PM

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.

This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Show me the truth and stop putting this con job up.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 10:45:18 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 30, 2020, 03:54:38 AM

If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?

The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.

Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?

Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.

In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.

Just to really ram the point home:



Every component of this frame is pointing towards a single convergence point, including the horizontal string which cuts straight across the two liquid levels. This convergence point is clearly above the extended (yellow) horizon line.

Move the camera up or down a tiny amount and the two liquid levels won't line up. The only way to change the gap between the green line and the yellow extended horizon line is to move the camera up or down, which means you are no longer level.

What is it with you people?
Why start your convergence point from the liquid level in that tube?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 10:50:04 PM

Quote from: JJA on October 30, 2020, 01:55:08 PM

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

Don't forget a few things.
A spirit level and a scope with a crosshair and bring your 100% honesty and let's see the outcome.
Oh...one more thing: You can use any elevation you want to.

You need to be more clear and descriptive than "spirit level and a scope with a crosshair" if you want anyone to try your experiment.

Why don't you perform it and take pictures and share them?  Show your designs and setup.

I've made it more than plain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 11:00:07 PM

Quote from: Stash on October 31, 2020, 02:13:01 PM

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.

It just shows the set-up. The whole point of mounting the tube on a spirit level is to make sure it's level. Otherwise, why bother? If I showed an image of the bubble being level you would still say that it was level and tilted for the result. As for a video, I guess I could show a level spirit level then pan and move back around the camera and show the live view on the back of the camera which would show the same thing as here. But I'm sure you would come up with some reason around how our eyes work that makes it appear that way or some other nonsense.

The real question is why you automatically assume it's a fabrication? That's sort of a mystery.

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 01, 2020, 11:00:07 PM

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.

Again, why do you assume it's fake? Especially without any evidence that it is fake. Can you show us your set-up and results?

You can easily do your own. I've explained how easy it is and anyone can do it. I'd love to hear from some honest people for a change.