What would change your mind?

Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.

Quote from: robinofloxley

You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?

Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?

How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?

And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.

And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:16:33 AM

Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.

So what is there?

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:25:39 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use.

Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.

Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.

You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 05:34:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:16:33 AM

Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.

So what is there?

I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.

Quote from: JJA on September 21, 2020, 05:35:52 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:25:39 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

You would not be seeing any horizon line from a level sight.
Your level sight is bringing the horizon line into view...in the distance. This would not be happening if your hill is your Earth.
All that would be in that distance, is sky.

You can't get a better example than this picture. It's the perfect example, I love it. I'm saving this for future use.

Standing on a round hill, you clearly see a horizon. You can see the horizon of the hill you are standing on. No doubt about this.

Beyond that you also clearly see another horizon. This is the horizon of the round Earth you are also standing on.

You are claiming all we 'should' see is sky, but can't explain why horizons work for a hill but not the Earth. Clearly we CAN see the horison of an object we are standing on. It's right there!

Maybe someone can help you out.

Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:52:13 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 05:34:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:16:33 AM

Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.

So what is there?

I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.

Care to share a link?

You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 06:10:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:52:13 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 05:34:56 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:16:33 AM

Nope. I don't accept space as we're told.

So what is there?

I've mentioned this in topics, so look it up, there's plenty on it.

Care to share a link?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59595.0

Maybe someone can help you out.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 06:49:38 AM

You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.

When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.

Quote

Telescopes magnify the light your eyes can see. They do not allow you to see further distance....only what is in that naked eye distance, magnified.

You really don't get it do you.  Our eyes are light detectors.  The pupil is the 'aperture' of the eye and reaches a maximum diameter of around 6mm when fully dilated such as when it is dark adapted.

A telescope increases this aperture to whatever the diameter of the primary lens or mirror is. So the telescope gathers more light than the human eye is capable of on its own. It does this by increasing the size of the light gathering area. Very distant objects such as galaxies are absolutely huge but they are also very faint because they are a long, long way away.  Only two external galaxies are visible with the naked eye but countless more are visible with telescopes.  Take M81/M82 for example.  M82 has a size of 9 x 4 arc minutes on the sky but is also 12 million light years from Earth. I cannot see it with the naked but I can see it with a telescope. So the telescope is allowing me to see deeper into space.

So the telescope most certainly is allowing me to see objects which are further away that I can see with the naked eye alone.  Nothing to do with the size of the image or magnifying power.  It is to do with the additional light gathering power of the telescope.  If an object is too faint for me to detect it with a telescope then no amount of magnifying power will make it visible.

The resolving power and light gathering power are fixed properties of a telescope.  You can vary the power (by using eyepieces of different focal lengths) but no amount of magnifying power will allow me to see an object if my telescope is not picking up any photons from it.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 05:53:13 AM

Maybe someone can help you out.

You're the only one claiming that you can't see an object if your standing on it. 

You need all the help here, in basic geometry, optics and general common sense. Sadly I don't think they teach a class in the last one.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 21, 2020, 07:54:38 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 06:49:38 AM

You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.

When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.

I can't believe you don't understand you can stand on a hill AND a globe at the same time.  I suppose you think it's impossible to take a picture of two objects at once or see them with our eyeball lenses.

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:54:10 AM

Can I prove this.?Of course not.

Scepti, you realize you are relying on theories you cannot prove, instead of sciences that has been proven over and over through years and years of experiments, and you do this just because you think every scientist in the world is lying..

Quote from: g el on August 16, 2013, 09:03:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on August 16, 2013, 08:54:10 AM

Can I prove this.?Of course not.

Scepti, you realize you are relying on theories you cannot prove, instead of sciences that has been proven over and over through years and years of experiments, and you do this just because you think every scientist in the world is lying..

This is a real problem. Sceptimatic, your version holds about as much water as New Earth's flavour of month model.

And, actually, what do you think of those? Can't remember you telling New they are wrong...?

So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?

The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:33:46 AM

So Earth is not flat, but a "4D cylinder"?

The horizon should not be visible east-west, only north-south? Does not seem to work with what you claim, no?

Make up as many words as you feel you need.
I've never said any of that so leave it off here or your posts get bypassed.

It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:50:49 AM

It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.

There can only be one correct model.

Quote from: rvlvr on September 21, 2020, 08:50:49 AM

It is quite obvious your and their model cannot coexist.

There can only be one correct model.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 21, 2020, 06:49:38 AM

You were shown a photo of a baseball, showing an edge - something you claim can't happen, remember? Your objection was that the camera wasn't on the ball, it was off to the side. The hill is near enough a ball. The photographer is standing on top of this ball. According to you, that means the photographer should not be able to see any part of the hill at all, because it curves away. It's exactly the same argument you used to "explain" why it would be impossible to see any part of the earth if it were a ball.

This hill is visible and it undeniably has a clearly defined edge. It happens to sit on the earth. Take the earth away and you're left with a ball shaped hill which is visible and has an edge. This edge is the horizon of the hill. If you want to see beyond this horizon, you climb a tree.

When you understand that you need to argue from your point on your supposed globe and not using a hill on s supposed globe....only then will you get what's being said.

I can't believe a hill was used to show a so called horizon and then the father distant, real horizon was used, also.
I just sat back and smiled.

No matter how you want to play it, your Earth would always curve downwards from your level view. You would not see anything other than sky, in a short distance.

Basically you can never see any horizon line. It would be impossible on your globe.

I can't see any edge of a supposed Earth ball, because there is no edge of any Earth as a ball we supposedly walk upon.

What you should see, if we were on a globe....is sky, only

Quote from: JackBlack

Do you accept that you can see balls, like a basketball, including their edge?

Yep if I'm away from that ball as a separate object...not on it.
If I was on it like you think I am on your global Earth then there are no edges...at all. Two entirely different situations.

Quote from: JackBlack

The only way for you to maintain your falseposition that Earth cannot have a horizon is if you claim balls are invisible, with no visible edge at all.

If you were stood on a ball you would have no edges....ever.

Quote from: JJA on September 19, 2020, 08:21:03 AM

Your word salad makes no sense.  I can see the horizon with my eye or a camera. I don't even need a lens. I could take a picture of the horizon today without a lens if I wanted to.

Are you claiming you can't see the edge of a ball?  Didn't someone earlier show you a picture of a basketball? Are you claiming we can't actually see the edge? You simply CAN see the edge of a ball, even if you're standing on it.

I'm actually talking about the lens of your eye. Pay attention.
And yes, I am claiming you would not see the edge of a ball you are stood upon. You would have no horizon line...only sky.
As for using a basketball and a view away from it.You are not on a ball...are you? You are looking at a ball that you are not part of. Understand that.

So in summary, you are claiming, over and over, that if you stood on a ball Earth, you would not see an edge. Period. No edge. Nada.

And yet here we have a ball shaped hill. With a clearly defined edge. Do you not even see a contradiction here?

A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.

What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.

Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.

level sight.

Quote

A telescope is nothing more than a large microscope. It magnifies what is in the line of sight and distance.
You can place a speck of dust on the plate and look at that speck of dust with your naked eye. It will be difficult to see but you will likely see it as that speck.
Now focus your eye into the microscope and magnify your view and you will see a larger magnified speck of dust and some of its properties, most likely.

What you will not be able to do is to see any further than that plate.
Your telescope will offer your eyes that very same view....nothing more.

Telescopes do not see farther into the distance, they magnify it.

Yes you are quite right. Telescopes do magnify distant objects. I only have to look at the Moon or any of the major planets to realise that. For example when you look through a telescope at Saturn you can see the rings clearly and when you look at Venus you can see the various phases as it orbits the Sun just like the Earth does.  Simple, basic concepts.

You said earlier (unless I misunderstood exactly what you meant - in which case my apologies are sent) that a telescope doesn't allow you to see further then you can see with the naked eye.  That simply isn't true. I cannot see Pluto with my naked eye but I can see it with a telescope. Therefore the telescope does allow me to see more distant objects.  That has nothing to do with magnification though. The angular size of Pluto on the sky is less than the resolution limit of my 4 inch telescope. Piling on more and more magnification is not going to change that so that particular telescope will not allow me to see Pluto visually.

However if I replace the eyepiece with a camera and then aim my telescope in the direction of Pluto and take an exposure of a minute or and so then I will be able to detect Pluto.  Because I am now able to record all the photons of light arriving from Pluto over the course of that minute and that is enough to bring it into view. The only way I can see Pluto visually is by using a larger aperture which also has greater light gathering power and a better resolution.

So yes telescopes do magnify so they will show targets which are visible to the naked eye larger and with better resolution. The details we see in the planets are due to a combination of these. But they also allow us to see objects which are too distant and faint to see with the naked eye.  Not because of magnifying power but because of their better light gathering power and better resolution.

Quote from: Stash on September 21, 2020, 02:07:41 AM

If we perceive light all around the convex lens of our eyes, why are claiming that bottom half of our eyes receives less? I mean what if it's nighttime? What makes the top half of our eyes receive more light than the bottom part of our eyes? Where are you getting this optics notion from? Any references?

I highly doubt I'll get references to scupper a global Earth with this...do you?

Quote from: Stash

Again, what is the size of your earth? That would help a lot to know. Because mine is massive. And it's size and my size relative to it allows for the conventional globe earth model to see a horizon. So how big is Earth?

It makes no difference what size it is.

If your Earth is a globe you believe you walk upon then you would have no horizon, so it clearly cannot be a globe.

Quote from: Stash

How does the sky show more reflected light at night? How does light know to darken at exactly the horizontal halfway point across the center of my eye? What if I'm looking up? Or down?

Quote from: Stash

And as far as the horizon always meeting eye-level, that has been debunked a million times. So it's not even a part of the FE argument anymore. You should get with the times. The notion has been abandoned.

Not by me it hasn't.

Quote from: Stash

And no, you didn't answer the question. What if I used spotlights to blast and light up the darkened 600' of the base of the tower? Would I all of a sudden be able to see it? Your optics notion seems to claim that I would.

It's your eyes that lose the light. The bottom of your eye lens.
The top receives more light due to less dense atmosphere.