Yes, curvature can be measured and modeled as proven by Blackpool Photo

I was divided on making this its own thread. Or post it in response to the old lie “the curvature can’t be measured”.

I decided this it is a stand alone thread.  Unfortunately, it probably with be ignored by the people who claim a “laser should measure curvature.”  And probably too much background.  Especially on subjects that deserve their own threads. 

So.  The earth is huge, and the amount of curvature is slight to us small humans.

For the claim a laser level should measure curvature?  Not sure how that works on the scale of the earth?  And would be much different than surveying and using line of sight and correcting for the horizontal line? 

The laser does go straight except if bent by atmospheric conditions?  Then you have to somehow measure drop perpendicular to the laser.  But line of sight works the same way in surveying. So the laser level is really a moot point anyway. 

And level surface as defined in surveying follows the sphere of the earth anyway. 



https://gcekbpatna.ac.in/assets/documents/lecturenotes/Surveying_Mod2_Levelling.pdf

So the definition of level surface brings us to the world of surveying.  It was long understood the earth is too big to measure with a flat edge. And the earth can accurately be measured with line of sight (which arguably has the same strengths and problems as “a laser level”), and tweaking with adjusting for refraction.

So surveying ties into the long known dip of the horizon.

Using surveying and the dip of the horizon, it’s long been known that you can calculate the curvature of the earth.



Which can be verified.

Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.
The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment

 that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.
Only one conclusion remains:
The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

Almost to the point of this thread…. Hold on

So I guess this photo a few years ago caused quite the buzz?  Who knew?

A photo by:

Kevin Jackson, of Birkdale, Southport, captured the amazing view of the seaside resort from the Sefton coast.

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/stunning-picture-blackpool-thats-set-19719171.amp

https://i2-prod.lancs.live/incoming/article19719194.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/0_blackpooljfif.jpg

As presented by Dave McKeegan in this video.



Now the point of all this.  Blackpool tower looks relatively taller than the background hills because the earth is spherical.



We can model the view of Blackpool Tower relative to the distance hills for a flat earth vs spherical earth.

1. The height of the Blackpool Tower is known.
2. The position of the photographer is known.
3. The radius of the earth is measured and known.
4. The distance to the background hills and their height are known.



If the earth was flat.  The background hills would be taller in the photo than the tower.



A rough model of how the photo should look for the tower relative to the background mountains on a flat earth. 



The evidence is pretty clear. And even supposedly converted this person,Ranty-Flat-Earth, back to spherical earth

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/odpjrm/this_image_converted_me_from_a_very_prominent/

To answer the question given by the pictures, apparently yes.

Any time a professional allows bias to color their observations, they have failed as a professional.
If I were a doctor, and believed that black skin is somehow different from white skin, and don't perform operations on black people, no matter how good I am at white surgery, aren't I not really doing the "first do no harm" rule? I've neglected certain patients on the color of their skin.

Similarly if a photographer, rather than allowing the facts to lead where they will, tries to make them conform to RE, they fail at being an objective photographer.

So yes, I know your business better than you professional photographer, as I've taken photos too, and they don't involve "adjusting to the curve."

I can make a photo sweep 360 degrees around horizontally, or 180 laterally overhead. In case you missed it, that looks like a dome.

To answer the question given by the pictures, apparently yes.

Any time a professional allows bias to color their observations, they have failed as a professional.
If I were a doctor, and believed that black skin is somehow different from white skin, and don't perform operations on black people, no matter how good I am at white surgery, aren't I not really doing the "first do no harm" rule? I've neglected certain patients on the color of their skin.

Similarly if a photographer, rather than allowing the facts to lead where they will, tries to make them conform to RE, they fail at being an objective photographer.

So yes, I know your business better than you professional photographer, as I've taken photos too, and they don't involve "adjusting to the curve."

As usual, your off topic. And can only try to derail the thread. 

Address how this proves the earth is spherical.

Now the point of all this.  Blackpool tower looks relatively taller than the background hills because the earth is spherical.

Similarly if a photographer, rather than allowing the facts to lead where they will, tries to make them conform to RE, they fail at being an objective photographer.

And what photographer does that?
You are the one desperately coming up with excuses for why things should magically work on a FE.

I can make a photo sweep 360 degrees around horizontally, or 180 laterally overhead. In case you missed it, that looks like a dome.

Why stop at 180? You can do a full 360 degrees, going overhead and below.
That isn't a dome. That is vision works with angles.

Now can you address the photo and explain why the mountains are too low?

[quote

[/quote]

How can this person be below the ball surface looking out upward?

He would be on TOP of that ball surface at all times, looking out DOWNWARD from his position.

That sketch is completely impossible and utterly absurd.

And this is what you hold up as support?

Sheesh

How can this person be below the ball surface looking out upward?

He would be on TOP of that ball surface at all times, looking out DOWNWARD from his position.

That sketch is completely impossible and utterly absurd.

For a RE, you can consider any point the top.
And amazingly enough, you can look up as well.

Is this better:


Now care to address the issue?

And this is what you hold up as support?

Now care to address the issue?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Now Turbs.  Care to address the first part of the opening post and the argument in context as a whole how the Earth’s curvature has been measured, is verified, and creates accurate modeling of earth where Flat Earth creates errors. 

Not ever measured or verified as curvature, it’s entirely ignored as not existing, because it doesn’t exist at all.

Are you aware that the first maps made of the Earth, showed it entirely flat, no fake ‘continent’ they claim wasn’t known to exist until about one century ago!

Those maps showed a circular boundary around the entire flat Earth. And showed every real continent in their positions on Earth.

When they made up a ball Earth speeding through endless space, years later, how did they make maps of it, before they told us it was first explored by Columbus and others. They told us the entire Earth hadn’t been explored yet. They only said a giant continent was discovered to be on Earth about 150 years ago or so, that would mean they hadn’t mapped the entire Earth yet, if you believe that bs, anyway.

So they took the real maps of our flat Earth, and took the centre point of Earth as being their North Pole, and wrapped the outer edges down around a ball.

This worked pretty good from the northern area, but not going further to the southern half of their ball.

Ships were sailing way off course in the southern seas, but nobody knew why!!

Because flat maps don’t work as ball maps, especially in the south.

So then they made it a flat map again, with a ball Earth plunked into it, sort of, which were Mercator maps.

It was once again the point in center of Earth for these maps, and in the lower northern area of Earth, because it was able to.match up fairly well to the real maps of the real flat Earth. 

And they adjusted the southern half as a ‘projection’, which means it was flatter in the south than their first ball maps were, though still not very accurate.  They still aren’t accurate in the south, only better than before.

Why were they the most accurate in the north, is because they matched the real flat Earth maps they stole and hid away from us.

There’d be no reason for those maps to be most accurate at the ‘north pole’, that they hadn’t even explored yet.

And there’d be no reason their maps would be so inaccurate from the southern half of their ball Earth either.

All of this is explained by what they used, which were real flat Earth maps already existing at the time.

Today, a revised map uses the most accurate square areas of maps, and puts them over the inaccurate, not square areas of maps, essentially extending it out as flat over more land.

Who knew they’d be the most accurate maps ever made?

No reason at all, they just work better than their earlier maps do!

Sure it’s a ball, it just can’t be mapped as a ball, no big deal!

I notice you yet again realise you have been spouting pure BS, and need to yet again flee from the topic at hand, to instead spout mountains of delusional BS with no connection to reality to pretend Earth is flat.

How about you try to address the argument?
Or shall we again take it as an admission that you know this argument shows Earth is round, and that you are wilfully lying to everyone because you can't accept reality?

Not ever measured or verified as curvature

Your wilful ignorance does not magically make those measurements and verifications magically not exist.
It just means you are wilfully ignorant of reality.

Are you aware that the first maps made of the Earth, showed it entirely flat

No.
The first maps made of Earth were quite inaccurate and showed a tiny portion of it.
Once maps of large areas were made, to a decent level of accuracy, the distortion due to the curvature had to be taken into account.

If you think it did show the entirety of Earth with everything correct and to scale, why don't you provide such a map?

When they made up a ball Earth speeding through endless space

Again, stick to reality. Not your fantasy.

No one made up a round Earth moving through space.
That is what all the evidence shows.
And the Ancient Greeks new Earth was round.

that would mean they hadn’t mapped the entire Earth yet

And that applies regardless of if you think Earth is flat or round.

So they took the real maps of our flat Earth

Again, provide this map.
I am yet to find a single one.

All flat maps show significant distortion.
But the globe doesn't. I wonder why?

This worked pretty good from the northern area, but not going further to the southern half of their ball.

And in reality, it is pretty much the exact opposite.
Dishonest FEers have taken an azimuthal equidistant projection of the globe, centred on the north pole, and pretended it is a map of a flat Earth.
This works reasonably well for places up quite north. Like North America, where there is FE con men conned loads of fools into believing Earth was flat.
But it entirely fails in the south, making continents far too wide, and making routes entirely wrong.

Planes still defy that FE BS, and fly based upon a round Earth, and end up where they are planning on going, taking times impossible for a FE.
Likewise ships also navigate the south as if Earth is a ball, and end up where they are expecting to go, in times expected for a RE, but impossible on a FE.

All because your flat fantasy doesn't work and Earth is round.

If Earth was actually flat, then there would be a single flat map, which had everything correct.

Why were they the most accurate in the north

The north pole centred azimuthal equidistant projection is most accurate at the north pole, because that is the centre point of the projection.

You can make a similar map with any point as the centre.

But the Mercator projection is just as inaccurate in the north as it is in the south.

Sure it’s a ball, it just can’t be mapped as a ball, no big deal!

You mean it can ONLY be mapped as a ball, and any flat map fails?

Not ever measured or verified as curvature,

Which.  Would be a lie.

As proven with measuring of the dip of the horizon to calculate earth’s curvature. Which has been cited to you.  And verified by the Rainy Lake Experiment cited to you.

So.  You’re down to blatant lies.

Which would make you a…..   

Any time a professional allows bias to color their observations, they have failed as a professional.

But how does this make the camera biased?

the south is distorted?

yes
because europeans had penis envy of the south
other than that?

why should mercator exist?!?!??!?!??!
it's a side projection of a spherical erath!!!!!!!!

if it is REEEEMOTELY accurate/ valid in terms of general geometrical triangulation between say, the capitals of gaon-madagascar-south africa

or the captials of braizl, peru, argentina,

or the capitals of brazil, botswana, australia,

then you, turbotutone, have bigger fish to fry

Not ever measured or verified as curvature, it’s entirely ignored as not existing, because it doesn’t exist at all.

Two words: Geodetic Surveying.

Sure it’s a ball, it just can’t be mapped as a ball, no big deal!

Can't be mapped as a ball?

Try sailing using a globe. These a reason why they use flat maps to sail. If you were to constantly making adjustments to imaginary curvature, you would wind up hopelessly off course. I'm sorry but I've been in planes and boats. I remember neither of them making any major adjustment. Course adjustment was only to avoid rocks, crab traps, etc.

This is what I mean by photographic bias. A normal shot of the horizon yields a straight line.



A dishonest photographer with an axe to grind, however, decides "this is not accurate, because I just know there is a curve here!" Why? Why should you suspect there is a curve? The camera is telling you the same thing your eyes tell you. There's a straight line in all directions and this so-called curve is your inability to properly see perspective.

These a reason why they use flat maps to sail.

Modern navigation works with GPS and mapping the world as a globe.  With celestial navigation treating the world as a globe.

Now bulmabriefs144, start your own thread and stop derailing this one because you can’t debunk the opening post.  Because it shows how the earth is demonstrably spherical. 

I notice you yet again flee from the topic.
Is it because you know you are spouting pure BS and have no chance of refuting the reality of the RE?

Try sailing using a globe.

Do you mean using a physical globe, or a map that is known to be a projection of the globe?
Because the 2 are quite different.

These a reason why they use flat maps to sail.

Because they are easy to pack up and store; and it allows you to have a bunch of different scales.

If you were to constantly making adjustments to imaginary curvature, you would wind up hopelessly off course.

And notice the key word:
"Imaginary".
If instead you make adjustments based upon the real curvature of Earth, you wind up where you planned to be.
If instead, you pretend Earth is flat, and aren't using a method of navigation which would allow you to automatically correct for that, then you will end up hopelessly off course.

Considering you want to bring up planes, they are a great example, with so many flights all over the globe, that it cannot make sense for Earth to be flat.
For the common FE BS, the southern flights are a massive problem, as the planes are going the wrong way.

I remember neither of them making any major adjustment.

Because you seem to want to pretend they would sail like normal then all of a sudden make a drastic adjustment for the globe.
Why would they?

This is what I mean by photographic bias. A normal shot of the horizon yields a straight line.

You mean this is what you mean by dishonest FE BS.

We know the horizon is NOT a straight line. Instead, we know it is roughly a circle.
This is the same if you want a magic FE horizon, or the real horizon for the RE.
The distinction, is how far below it is.
e.g. for an observer height of 2 m, the magic FE horizon is a 5 km radius circle 2 m below you.
The real RE horizon which actually makes sense is a 5 km radius circle 4 m below you.

Either way, you have a circle.

So if you think this is a problem for the RE, it is a problem for the FE as well.

So appealing to it to pretend Earth is flat is just dishonest BS.

Why? Why should you suspect there is a curve?

How about the simple fact that there is a horizon?
Something which should not exist on a FE.

The camera is telling you the same thing your eyes tell you.

That there is a horizon, a finite distance away, with the distance varying depending on your altitude.

That is telling you Earth is round.
But you ignore it.
You instead lie and claim it is a straight line.

Horizons already DO exist on the flat Earth, we see them every day.

Try to draw a curved surface, for a spherical object of any size at all.

Start at a smaller scale of a ball, to get the idea of what your drawing here.

All your lines are curving, never straight at all.

If Earths surface was curved, we’d see the horizons much closer than we do, because they’d curve more and more downward with distance, and wouldn’t rise up more and more as they do on our flat surface of Earth.

Why would you think the surface would rise up more and more on a curved surface that curves DOWNWARDS more and more with distance?

That’s what is seen over flat surfaces, because if you look over your coffee table, it appears to rise up at the end of it, right?

If you had another table of the same size, which was slightly curving down from your end of it, downward over to the far end, and compare both tables, you’d see they’re different, not much different, until you compare the two tables side by side. The subtle curve is hard to see by itself, until a flat table is set beside the curved table. 

The slight curve excuse doesn’t work. Neither does perspective make surfaces that curve more and more downward, appear to be going more and more the opposite direction of the surface.

Why would you think the shorter distance outward, the lesser it curves down, when almost a flat surface? Because a flat surface always appears to be rising up more and more.

A curving downward surface will not rise up more and more with more and more downward curves on it, that’s absurd!

So you’d say it is caused by perspective. No, this is what we see over flat surfaces. They keep rising more and more in the distance, until it forms into a horizon, at its HIGHEST point out from us.

Again, why do you believe that a surface will appear to only rise up more and more over it, and form a horizon at its highest point upward, then suddenly rise up less and less from that point? It’s always rising up more and more as we see it, what makes you think it stops rising up more and more at its highest point of the horizon? That’s the vanishing point of our sight. 

The surface isn’t rising, but it looks like it with our sight.

Objects aren’t really rising, but we see them rising up, which is not physically or geometrically possible, but nothing seen in the distance is bound by physical or geometrical laws or facts. They are indeed illusions, but physical in effect.

We don’t see the surface rise up or dip down along a horizon, which is the same surface we see rising up outward, so we know it doesn’t rise at all, from the cross view of the surface, since perspective isn’t acting on it.

Horizons already DO exist on the flat Earth, we see them every day.

You mean on the round Earth we live on.

Your argument is entirely circular.
You reject the fact that horizons refute the fantasy that Earth is flat, by baselessly asserting Earth is flat to pretend we would see a horizon on a flat Earth because we see it in reality.

But if we ditch your delusional assumption the horizon shows Earth is round.
A flat surface doesn't produce a horizon.

Start at a smaller scale of a ball, to get the idea of what your drawing here.

That is an incredibly dishonest start.
How about instead, we focus on the rate of curvature.
Lets start small, how about 1 nm every billion km?

This would be indistinguishable from flat.

All your lines are curving, never straight at all.

Just to an extent you cannot tell.

If Earths surface was curved, we’d see the horizons much closer than we do

No, we wouldn't.
If Earth's surface was curved (as it is) we would see the horizon exactly where we see them currently.

We would see them infinitely closer than we would for a FE, as a flat Earth has no horizons.

Again, the calculation is quite simple.
As an approximation, the horizon is located at a distance of sqrt(h*2*R).
For an observer height of 2 m, that works out to be 5.05 km.

If you wish to disagree, why don't you stop with all the pathetic BS and provide a formula for how far away you think the horizon should be?

Why would you think the surface would rise up more and more on a curved surface that curves DOWNWARDS more and more with distance?

This has been explained to you repeatedly.
You have 2 competing effects.
Perspective doesn't magically cease to exist because the surface is curved.

The distinction between a FE and a RE for the above is that the FE has the "horizon" 2 m below you, while the RE has it 4 m below you. And the RE can explain why you can't see beyond it, while the FE can't.

Again, for a flat surface, the surface would appear rise up forever, never stopping, never producing a horizon.
For a RE, it initially it behaves just like a flat surface and appears to rise. But with greater distance the curvature becomes more significant and it stops appearing to rise.

Again, the RE matches reality, the FE does not.

Stop repeating the same pathetic, refuted BS.

Start actually addressing the issues with your BS, or be honest and admit you can't.

If you had another table of the same size, which was slightly curving down from your end of it, downward over to the far end, and compare both tables, you’d see they’re different, not much different

That's right, they aren't much different.
BOTH appear to rise.

The distinction is that for the one with the slight curve, if you look at it from the right position you can see a horizon on that curved surface. For the flat one, the only horizon is the edge.

Great job refuting yourself yet again.

The slight curve excuse doesn’t work. Neither does perspective make surfaces that curve more and more downward, appear to be going more and more the opposite direction of the surface.

Why?
Because the honest analysis of both show you are lying?

Again, if your dishonest BS was true, all you would see of a ball would be a single point.
Even if the ball was billions of km wide, and you were standing directly in front of it, you would just see a point.

It is trivial to show you are spouting pure BS.

Why should perspective magically stop working just because the surface is round?

Again, the only distinction is the formula used.

For a flat surface it is atan(h/d). For a round surface it is atan(h/d+d/2R).

Again, the flat surface continues to rise, the round surface reaches a point where it stops.

A curving downward surface will not rise up more and more with more and more downward curves on it, that’s absurd!

So you’d say it is caused by perspective. No, this is what we see over flat surfaces.

You already refuted that BS above, by appealing to a table with a slight curve.

They keep rising more and more in the distance, until it forms into a horizon, at its HIGHEST point out from us.

That is what a curved surface does.
The horizon is formed at the apparent heighest point.
Before that point, perspective is dominant and the surface appears to rise.
After that point, curvature is dominant and the surface appears to go down.

Again, why do you believe that a surface will appear to only rise up more and more over it, and form a horizon at its highest point upward, then suddenly rise up less and less from that point?

Because that is what the math, observations, and logic clearly demonstrate.
Here is the distinction for you again:
atan(h/d) vs atan(h/d+d/2R)

Look at the angular position.
For a flat surface, it continues to rise. FOREVER!!! NEVER STOPPING!!!

For a round surface, it appears to rise, until it stops and goes back down.

Which one matches reality? The round surface.

From a logical point of view, for a flat surface, if you look directly towards a piece of a surface below you, and then consider a point slightly further away, that point is further away so you need to lift your head up to be looking towards it. This continues FOREVER! This is nothing like what is observed in reality.
For a round surface, the point directly below you is level, so it will behave just like a flat surface, and from looking straight down, you will need to lift your head up to see more land further away. But at the other extreme, it is going straight down, so you need to look down to see further. This means it will initially go up until it reaches a peak, and then goes down. This matches what is observed in reality.

What makes you think a flat surface should magically stop rising some finite distance away?

what makes you think it stops rising up more and more at its highest point of the horizon?

Where else is it meant to be stopping?
If it is rising, then by definition it must stop rising at the highest point.

That’s the vanishing point of our sight.

No it isn't, as clearly demonstrated by the fact we can see objects beyond it.

Objects aren’t really rising, but we see them rising up, which is not physically or geometrically possible

Not only is it possible, it is the exact result expected for a round surface.
You see based upon angles.
If you want to say it honestly, you don't see it rising, you see it at a higher angle of elevation.

We don’t see the surface rise up or dip down along a horizon, which is the same surface we see rising up outward, so we know it doesn’t rise at all

No, you don't.
A simple counterexample is standing in the centre of a bowl. The edge, to you, appears as a line across your vision.
So no, you don't know.

It isn’t magic to see the surface rising upward in the distance, right?

It’s not magic when a horizon appears at the end of a rising up surface, right?

And it’s not magic that all this happens over flat surfaces either. It’s a normal thing that happens all the time.

A curving down more and more surface cannot rise upward more and more at the same time, it’s nonsensical and absurd. Wacky.

It isn’t magic to see the surface rising upward in the distance, right?

No, it isn't.
It is simple geometry.

It’s not magic when a horizon appears at the end of a rising up surface, right?

If that surface is round, or you reach the end, no, as it is simple geometry.
If that surface is flat, and the horizon is not the edge, then yes, it is magic, as it defies simple geometry.

The simple way to understand is to consider a point on the surface beyond the horizon, and consider the path of light from that surface to your eyes.
For a round surface, that path goes through the surface, with the surface blocking the view.
For a flat surface, it remains above it, with pure magic blocking the view.

A curving down more and more surface cannot rise upward more and more at the same time, it’s nonsensical and absurd. Wacky.

Repeating the same dishonest BS doesn't help your case.

Same as a rising upward surface defies geometry, but you ignore that. Our sight is not bound by geometry or the reality, so don’t try holding it up when it suits your argument, and ignore it because it destroys your same argument, it won’t work for you.

Your trying to argue about illusions that are found to exist on Earth, and pick and choose what suits your argument, and say the rest is all real, a real curve ‘wins out’ over the illusion and that’s it!

Your imaginary curve is what doesn’t really exist at all here.

Same as a rising upward surface defies geometry,

How?

From another thread…

Oh.  The old stupid falsehood somehow perspective physically blocks light.



How far back until the floor blocks the light of the doorway?

Hint.  As long as the doorway is viewed from above the floor.  The floor will never block the light from the doorway.
 

Note. Added. Or.  More in line with the sky. What point will the floor as the ground will physically block the view off the ceiling acting as the sky?  Where a pair of binoculars wouldn’t bring it back into view?

Your false appeal is extensively covered and debunked in the thread below.

Horizon did not block duck from view
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

I’ve done my own homework.  Have you?

Same as a rising upward surface defies geometry

No, it doesn't.
The geometry works fine.

You cannot show a single fault with the geometry at all. Instead you just appeal to dishonest BS.

Again, we do not see physical heights.
We see in terms of angles.

If an object is 2 m below you, directly below you, it will be at an angle of -90 degrees, i.e. straight down.
If instead it is 2 m below you and 2 m in front of you, it will be at an angle of -45 degrees.
This is basic geometry.

There is no defying this basic geometry unless you want to invoke refraction.

You instead choose to dishonestly present this to pretend it "appearing to get higher" is magically defying geometry.
It isn't.
If you are honest, instead of stating it as "appearing to rise" and pretending it violates geometry, you honestly, and correctly state that the angle of elevation increases based upon simple geometry.

So no, the one ignoring geometry is you.

ignore it because it destroys your same argument, it won’t work for you.

If you think it destroys my argument, then prove it.
Don't just pathetically assert it, actually prove, using that geometry, that it doesn't match our vision.

That means accepting the fact that our eyes work based upon angles, and using geometry to show what that angle should be.

This also means not trying to show that geometry shows there should be no horizon on a FE and yet on the real Earth we see a horizon and pretending that means geometry is wrong. That simply means FE is wrong.

Your trying to argue about illusions

No, I'm not.
This is not an illusion. It is basic geometry.

Your imaginary curve is what doesn’t really exist at all here.

Then why does all the evidence, including the horizon which you are still yet to explain, clearly demonstrate the curvature you hate so much does exist?

Again, basic geometry shows you are wrong.
Scaled down models show you are wrong.
Pretty much everything shows you are wrong.
Yet you desperately cling to all your dishonest BS, even though you can't explain anything.

That means accepting the fact that our eyes work based upon angles, and using geometry to show what that angle should be.

An illusion of our eyes seeing the surface rise up more and more at an ever higher up angle, is not based on any sort of actual geometry, that angle does not even exist, and has no actual angle at all going up higher, so how does this have anything to do with actual geometry, which measures actual angles going up higher?

There is no geometrical explanation for the surface appearing to rise upward, the best you can do is measure how high it looks to go up over a distance, using a height above the surface to see it from, and only when a ship of certain height goes past the horizon, can we determine it’s illusory height upward from the actual surface below us.

We could also go to the other side of the horizon, three miles out from it, turn around and see the horizon from the opposite side, which would also appear that non-existent height!

We could also view that horizon perpendicular to those points, also three miles away, in the middle of that horizon, and along points parallel to it, as a straight line of view 3 miles away all along the way.

You won’t ever see the ship curving downward when past the horizon seen from opposite sides, nor see a curve along points perpendicular to it, as it sails past the horizon just the same way. 

If you draw a ship on water, sailing along the top of a horizon, seen three miles away, what you’d have to draw is a curve over the horizon that goes down far enough to make the ship go lower than the other end of the horizon.


Your made up curve cannot win this argument. Viewing the same ship from these three points, confirms the surface is completely flat, and confirms horizons are the same height as the rest of the surface, and do not have an unseen curve past them, making a ship curve downward out of view.

The horizon viewed across the surface at three miles away, parallel to the horizon, will clearly be seen as flat straight line across the surface, and a ship sailing atop that horizon will sail over the flat straight horizon all the way across the top of the horizon.

It is that easy to prove the surface is flat, prove that horizons DO exist on a flat surface, and prove this made up curve is complete bs.

The problem is that you don’t want to see this, but that’s your problem, deal with it however you wish to, put your head in the sand like an ostrich, and don’t see it’s flat, believe what they tell you to believe, say there’s a curved surface on a ball Earth, just don’t look at a ship sailing over a flat surface from three viewpoints in a video or something, it’ll ruin your fairy tale story for good. 

It would be good to see their fairy tale destroyed, and someday, I know it will be ripped to shreds, fall like a house of cards.  I’m sure I won’t be here to see it, but maybe we see the Eartb from the heavens, through the eyes of hummingbirds. I’m sure of it, but that’s another issue entirely off topic so I’ll leave it at that.

 

What they don’t want us to know, is that when you see the surface at three different points, or 4 points, you form a square on the surface, seeing in the square from all points or sides of it.

This effectively removes the horizon and a rising surface, and ships vanishing past the horizon. There are no illusions to see and make up bs about.

Why are people so gullible, is a sad thing indeed. So be it, I guess

Rising up ever gigher angle?

Vision coverges like any photo of rail road tracks.

But you can zoom in and see they dint touch.

Is that true or not?

The problem is that you don’t want to see this,

How does a flat earth block a boat from line of sight?




Again….

Quote from: turbonium2 on February 17, 2024, 12:29:37 AM

Why would you ever believe a flat surface cannot have horizons,

Ok.  Let’s see if a flat surface can have a “horizon” to block an object physically from view.

Let’s take this object and place a paper ruler on it. We will call it a stud.



Lets use a piece of sheet metal laid flat and see if it can block our object from view.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the sheet metal laying flat.



Let’s zoom the above picture by cropping.
Looks like the whole length of the stud is visible?




Hmm.  Now let’s put curvature in the piece of sheet metal.  Like this.  Did have to weigh down the ends.



Looking out over the “horizon” of the curved metal sheet.



Let’s zoom the above picture by cropping.
Well.  The bottom is physically blocked from view.

Curved metal sheet to produce horizon.



vs the flat sheet that couldn’t produce a “horizon” to physically block the stud from view.

What they don’t want us to know, is that when you see the surface at three different points, or 4 points, you form a square on the surface, seeing in the square from all points or sides of it.

This effectively removes the horizon and a rising surface, and ships vanishing past the horizon. There are no illusions to see and make up bs about.

Why are people so gullible, is a sad thing indeed. So be it, I guess

You’re not addressing the issue.



The mountains in the background are relatively below the height of the tower.

The actual photo…



If the earth was flat, the mountains would have a greater height as the background.

Like this simulation.




Curved earth explains why the tower appears taller than the background mountains.




Flat earth does not.

What they don’t want us to know,

Your rambling.

And your ignoring that curvature has been verified.

Quote

Rainy Lake Experiment: Conclusion

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.
The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment

 that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.
Only one conclusion remains:
The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

So.  One can make accurate predictions concerning spherical earth, and test those predictions about spherical earth through experiments.

Turbs, you are left lying about how the horizon would work on a flat earth. Especially when it’s shown time and time again on a flat earth a boat out to sea wouldn’t be physically out of the line of sight from a person on shore. 

An illusion of our eyes seeing the surface rise up more and more at an ever higher up angle, is not based on any sort of actual geometry

Again, this is not an illusion. This is basic geometry.
That angle is simply the angle to it.

i.e. from your eye, there is a hypothetical line going to the point you are looking at.
You can measure the angle from level to that object.


You don't need a physical line to measure it.

This is the basic geometry that dictates vision.

It is not an illusion of it rising higher, it is simply that the angle gets higher.

Again, that angle is atan(h/d).

As d increases, h/d decreases so atan(h/d) decreases, so the angle of dip gets smaller, so the angle towards the point gets higher.

There is no geometrical explanation for the surface appearing to rise upward

Except the one that has been repeatedly provided to you which you simply ignore because it destroys your fantasy.

the best you can do is measure how high it looks to go up over a distance

No, the best you could do is measure the angle, as above.

We could also view that horizon perpendicular to those points, also three miles away, in the middle of that horizon, and along points parallel to it, as a straight line of view 3 miles away all along the way.

You have had this lie refuted already.


A perpendicular viewpoint, the blue circle as its horizon, does not offer you the grey line you desire.

You won’t ever see the ship curving downward when past the horizon seen from opposite sides

When you view it from opposite sides, one side sees the ship moving away before it appears to sink into Earth, dropping due to curvature.
The other side sees it appearing to rise from below Earth, rising due to curvature.
The point perpendicular to it will see it appear to rise as it just touches the horizon, and then sink again.

This is entirely consistent with what is expected for a RE, and nothing like what is expected for a FE.

If you draw a ship on water, sailing along the top of a horizon

Then you have it travelling in a circle, remaining the same distance away from you and that means the same distance below you.

Your made up curve cannot win this argument.

No, YOUR made up curve, your blatant lie about how it should work, cannot win.
But the real curve does.

The other thing which cannot win is your flat fantasy.

Again, the horizon, and objects appearing to sink beyond the horizon, show beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

The best you can do is blatantly lie, pretending that a flat surface will magically produce a horizon, even though you have no explanation for it at all, and need to continually ignore the countless explanations that show it will not.

will clearly be seen as flat straight line

Again, repeating this lie wont help you.
The horizon is a circle.
The distinction between your delusional BS and reality, for an observer height of 2 m, is your BS has this circle 2 m below you with no explanation at all for what magic causes it, while reality has it ~4 m below you and a clear explanation for why it is there.

Again, if you want to see the circle, LOOK DOWN, and be high enough above it so you can.

It is that easy to prove the surface is flat, prove that horizons DO exist on a flat surface, and prove this made up curve is complete bs.

It clearly isn't as none of the BS you have provided proves the surface is flat, nor does it prove that horizons exist on a flat surface.

Your entirely line of argument boils down to:
Earth is flat, therefore Earth is flat, therefore the horizon which is clear proof of a round Earth actually magically happens on a flat surface so doesn't prove Earth is flat.

The problem is that you don’t want to see this, but that’s your problem, deal with it however you wish to, put your head in the sand like an ostrich

No thanks.
And there you go with more projection.

What they don’t want us to know, is that when you see the surface at three different points, or 4 points, you form a square on the surface, seeing in the square from all points or sides of it.

This effectively removes the horizon and a rising surface, and ships vanishing past the horizon. There are no illusions to see and make up bs about.

Why are people so gullible, is a sad thing indeed. So be it, I guess

I'm not gullible, which is why I'm not accepting your BS.

This delusional, dishonest BS of yours, relies upon pretending that grey line and the blue circle are the same thing, when they are clearly different.
You are literally switching the situation around to pretend you get the result you want.

All while fleeing from the inescapable fact that you have no explanation at all for what magic causes the horizon on a flat surface.

All you are doing is demonstrating your dishonesty and desperation.

The evidence shows Earth is not flat. You ignoring that and lying about it wont change it.

If you want the evidence to be compatible with a flat Earth, then stop with all the dishonest BS and explain the horizon. Don't just assert it magically happens or that perspective magically stops, explain what causes it.